joeu
08-29-2007, 06:51 AM
Criticism of Ron Paul widely distributed in the anti-illegal immigration movement.
Submitted for review. Cogent responses to the author encouraged.
******************************************
America First 2008
Update
Ron Paul’s campaign seems to be one that is rooted in Libertarian philosophy and libertarian politics and then evolved out of that into the 2008 Campaign. Dr. Paul was the 1988 Presidential candidate for the Libertarian party. According Wikipedia, “Ron Paul has been referred to as a conservative, a constitutionalist, a libertarian, and a classical liberal] (as distinct from modern American liberalism).”
Let us consider three issues of interest to conservative Republicans, right to life, immigration and free trade.
Right to Life
The Libertarian platform reads, “We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control.” This is not listed as an issue on their platform. If libertarians are interested in protecting individual rights, are they saying that the unborn child has no rights? Surely, this must be a quagmire for libertarians.
Ron Paul’s position differs considerably from the Libertarian Party. Concerning right to life, Ron Paul’s website reads, “The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.”
Immigration
The Libertarian Party platform states, “Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.” They state…
“Studies also show that not only do immigrants not take jobs away from American workers, they also do not drive down wages. Numerous studies have demonstrated that increased immigration has little or no effect on the wages of most American workers, and may even increase wages at upper income levels.”
Ron Paul says, “The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked.” His six point plan includes: Physically secure our borders and coastlines; enforce visa rules; no amnesty; no welfare for illegal aliens; end birthright citizenship; pass true immigration reform. (Here the complex problem of “amnesty” is given one sentence. And the heart of the immigration control issue is returning illegal aliens to their home countries. There is no mention of enforcement against employers, which would be necessary.)
This seems a recent conversion however, and his recent record of more restrictive immigration may reflect a greater sense of reality, as opposed to libertarian delusions. Or it may be that he could not possibly run for office in Texas any longer an be an open borders libertarian.
Here is Sandra Miller has investigated Ron Paul’s record on immigration:
Ron Paul's voting record
”I'd collected Ron Paul's voting record on the very strategies urged that night to reverse the influence of "one-world government:" hiring Americans, no amnesty for illegal aliens and border security based on Paul's Immigration Voting Record & Report Card on the NumbersUSA website:
(1) Paul consistently voted every year since 1999 against putting the military on the border:
2006: H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815
2004: Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200
2003: Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588
2002: H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546
2001: Traficant amendment to HR 2586
2000: Traficant amendment to H.R.4205
1999: Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401.
(2) Paul voted in 1997, 2001( H.R. 1885) and 2002 (H RES 365) to grant, extend or continue Section 245-i amnesties for illegal aliens.
(3) Paul voted NO on extending the voluntary Basic Pilot Workplace Verification Program (H.R. 2359),
(4) Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437 - "Enforcement Only" Bill).
(5) Paul voted YES to increase H2-B (HR 763 in 2005) and H-1B visas (HR 3736 in 1998). In 1998, he voted to allow US firms to lay off Americans to replace them with foreigners.”
Ron Paul’s vote for H-1B visas to replace American workers with foreign workers indicates that he doesn’t quite understand the negative impact of massive immigration, legal or illegal, on American workers.
Free Trade
The Libertarian Party is for Free Trade, that is, unrestricted trade with foreign nations regardless of the consequences to the populations of the trading nations. It’s platform says, “Efforts to forcibly redistribute wealth or forcibly manage trade are intolerable.” Surprisingly, there is not more about “Free Trade” on the Libertarian Party website or in the Libertarian Platform. In the last twenty years, libertarians have been mugged by reality. The loss of American manufacturing jobs and massive foreign trade deficits wasn’t suppose to happen under libertarian theory. So, it is just ignored.
Ron Paul’s position on Free Trade is rather contradictory. He opposed free trade agreement, but for the less important issues. He recognizes the threat to United States sovereignty on his website,
“So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.”
“Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.”
But he does not seem to grasp that Free Trade is a “race to the bottom.” Here is Ron Paul on Lew Rockwell. In effect, he is saying having an Open Trade, Free Trade. In Paul’s view, Free Trade is good, but the agreements are bad.
“As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people.” (Here he is stuck in the paradigm that no American working family believes.)
Ron Paul’s position is exactly the opposite that built the economic wealth of the United States. Alexander Hamilton read Adam Smith and his claims for free trade and rejected it. Hamilton’s report on manufacturers to the U.S. Congress stressed the importance of protecting American industry from cheap foreign goods and one of the first bills passed by the United States was a tariff bill.
Summary
Dr. Paul has assembled an eclectic set of financial and social positions that appear to have their roots in the libertarian movement. In some cases, he has abandoned those roots and adopted positions that are in alignment with long-term American conservative values. Restrictive immigration is the most prominent.
My net impression, is that Ron Paul's campaign is a contradiction. On one hand it strongly supports a limited government, limited spending, individual rights and the Constitution. Further, he supports the right to life.
On the other hand, only belatedly has he recognized the dangers of illegal immigration, much less the dangers of mass legal immigration. He somehow wants to support the individual American, yet at the same time send that citizen's job to China.
Cheers,
Paul Streitz
www.americafirst2008.com
amfirst@optonline.net
Submitted for review. Cogent responses to the author encouraged.
******************************************
America First 2008
Update
Ron Paul’s campaign seems to be one that is rooted in Libertarian philosophy and libertarian politics and then evolved out of that into the 2008 Campaign. Dr. Paul was the 1988 Presidential candidate for the Libertarian party. According Wikipedia, “Ron Paul has been referred to as a conservative, a constitutionalist, a libertarian, and a classical liberal] (as distinct from modern American liberalism).”
Let us consider three issues of interest to conservative Republicans, right to life, immigration and free trade.
Right to Life
The Libertarian platform reads, “We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control.” This is not listed as an issue on their platform. If libertarians are interested in protecting individual rights, are they saying that the unborn child has no rights? Surely, this must be a quagmire for libertarians.
Ron Paul’s position differs considerably from the Libertarian Party. Concerning right to life, Ron Paul’s website reads, “The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.”
Immigration
The Libertarian Party platform states, “Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.” They state…
“Studies also show that not only do immigrants not take jobs away from American workers, they also do not drive down wages. Numerous studies have demonstrated that increased immigration has little or no effect on the wages of most American workers, and may even increase wages at upper income levels.”
Ron Paul says, “The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked.” His six point plan includes: Physically secure our borders and coastlines; enforce visa rules; no amnesty; no welfare for illegal aliens; end birthright citizenship; pass true immigration reform. (Here the complex problem of “amnesty” is given one sentence. And the heart of the immigration control issue is returning illegal aliens to their home countries. There is no mention of enforcement against employers, which would be necessary.)
This seems a recent conversion however, and his recent record of more restrictive immigration may reflect a greater sense of reality, as opposed to libertarian delusions. Or it may be that he could not possibly run for office in Texas any longer an be an open borders libertarian.
Here is Sandra Miller has investigated Ron Paul’s record on immigration:
Ron Paul's voting record
”I'd collected Ron Paul's voting record on the very strategies urged that night to reverse the influence of "one-world government:" hiring Americans, no amnesty for illegal aliens and border security based on Paul's Immigration Voting Record & Report Card on the NumbersUSA website:
(1) Paul consistently voted every year since 1999 against putting the military on the border:
2006: H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815
2004: Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200
2003: Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588
2002: H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546
2001: Traficant amendment to HR 2586
2000: Traficant amendment to H.R.4205
1999: Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401.
(2) Paul voted in 1997, 2001( H.R. 1885) and 2002 (H RES 365) to grant, extend or continue Section 245-i amnesties for illegal aliens.
(3) Paul voted NO on extending the voluntary Basic Pilot Workplace Verification Program (H.R. 2359),
(4) Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437 - "Enforcement Only" Bill).
(5) Paul voted YES to increase H2-B (HR 763 in 2005) and H-1B visas (HR 3736 in 1998). In 1998, he voted to allow US firms to lay off Americans to replace them with foreigners.”
Ron Paul’s vote for H-1B visas to replace American workers with foreign workers indicates that he doesn’t quite understand the negative impact of massive immigration, legal or illegal, on American workers.
Free Trade
The Libertarian Party is for Free Trade, that is, unrestricted trade with foreign nations regardless of the consequences to the populations of the trading nations. It’s platform says, “Efforts to forcibly redistribute wealth or forcibly manage trade are intolerable.” Surprisingly, there is not more about “Free Trade” on the Libertarian Party website or in the Libertarian Platform. In the last twenty years, libertarians have been mugged by reality. The loss of American manufacturing jobs and massive foreign trade deficits wasn’t suppose to happen under libertarian theory. So, it is just ignored.
Ron Paul’s position on Free Trade is rather contradictory. He opposed free trade agreement, but for the less important issues. He recognizes the threat to United States sovereignty on his website,
“So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.”
“Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.”
But he does not seem to grasp that Free Trade is a “race to the bottom.” Here is Ron Paul on Lew Rockwell. In effect, he is saying having an Open Trade, Free Trade. In Paul’s view, Free Trade is good, but the agreements are bad.
“As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people.” (Here he is stuck in the paradigm that no American working family believes.)
Ron Paul’s position is exactly the opposite that built the economic wealth of the United States. Alexander Hamilton read Adam Smith and his claims for free trade and rejected it. Hamilton’s report on manufacturers to the U.S. Congress stressed the importance of protecting American industry from cheap foreign goods and one of the first bills passed by the United States was a tariff bill.
Summary
Dr. Paul has assembled an eclectic set of financial and social positions that appear to have their roots in the libertarian movement. In some cases, he has abandoned those roots and adopted positions that are in alignment with long-term American conservative values. Restrictive immigration is the most prominent.
My net impression, is that Ron Paul's campaign is a contradiction. On one hand it strongly supports a limited government, limited spending, individual rights and the Constitution. Further, he supports the right to life.
On the other hand, only belatedly has he recognized the dangers of illegal immigration, much less the dangers of mass legal immigration. He somehow wants to support the individual American, yet at the same time send that citizen's job to China.
Cheers,
Paul Streitz
www.americafirst2008.com
amfirst@optonline.net