Ron Paul Against Amnesty

[Chosen]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

The Immigration Question

by Ron Paul


The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters’ cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.

We’re often reminded that America is a nation of immigrants, implying that we’re coldhearted to restrict immigration in any way. But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again. They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality.

Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago.

We’re often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume – especially medical care.

We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.

Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.

We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

April 4, 2006

[dannno]

I agree, but I don't see anywhere in there that he blames the Mexicans for the immigration. He seems to be blaming our policies, which I am in complete agreement with.

Are they breaking the law?

Yes.


Should we reward that?

No.


Are cannabis consumers breaking the law?

Yes.


Should we reward that?

As a cannabis consumer, no, the government should not reward people who use cannabis.


Back to the topic, should we spew hatred about Mexicans?

No.

[Chosen]

LOL you are now saying Ron Paul is blaming Mexicans?

You were in support of amnesty a second ago, now that you find that Dr Paul is opposed to it you are. Now you are trying to spin it to appear as if it is some contest against Mexicans.

Mexican is a political term describing people who are members of a society called Mexico. It isn't specific to race as you are using it.

Illegal alien is someone who has broken the law.

Immigrant is someone who has come to the US legally.

[Kludge]

I... Agree with Danno.

Weird.


I see amnesty in the same way I see a pardon for law-breakers of laws which should not exist. Obviously, there is a good Agorist argument in there, though it'd be ideal if we could just end the Welfare state, or at least restructure it to not give incentive to do nothing (or do it under the table).

[Chosen]

I... Agree with Danno.

Weird.


I see amnesty in the same way I see a pardon for law-breakers of laws which should not exist. Obviously, there is a good Agorist argument in there, though it'd be ideal if we could just end the Welfare state, or at least restructure it to not give incentive to do nothing (or do it under the table).Of course you do. Nuff' said.

[Chosen]

Ron Paul warns against amnesty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju5Ar2BWAwQ

[Chosen]

Ron Paul against Amnesty press release:
http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/06/press_release_n.html

June 18, 2007
Press Release: No Amnesty, No Welfare

No Amnesty, No Welfare for Illegal Aliens

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 18, 2007

ARLINGTON, VA – As a congressman, Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to end illegal immigration. He voted for a border fence, opposes the current Senate "compromise" bill, and introduced legislation to end birth right citizenship. Dr. Paul has consistently warned Americans about the looming menace of the North American Union and is the only presidential candidate calling for an end to welfare benefits, mandatory medical care and free education for illegal aliens.

"No leader in Washington has fought to end illegal immigration harder than Congressman Ron Paul," said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Dr. Paul knows that America must never grant amnesty to those who are in our country illegally."

The following are statements Dr. Paul has made in the U.S. House of Representatives:

-- "The much-vaunted Senate "compromise" on immigration is a compromise alright: a compromise of our laws, a compromise of our sovereignty, and a compromise of the Second Amendment. That anyone in Washington believes this is a credible approach to solving our immigration crisis suggests just how out of touch our political elites really are."

-- "If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty."

-- "...real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It's as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked."

-30-

[Chosen]

Victim: Kelynn Byrd
An illegal alien has been charged in the kicking death of 2 year old Kelynn Byrd

* Date of Crime: 2007-08-12
* Location of crime:
Coweta,OK
* Sex: M
* Age: 2




http://www.voiac.org/images/vimages/Kelynn.JPG




Perpetrator: Michael Hernandez

* Sex: M
* Arrest Status: charged

Crime Description:

Kelynn Byrd, an innocent two year old child, died from being kicked repeatedly in the chest allegedly by Michael Hernandez, an illegal alien, Kelynn died of blunt chest and abdominal trauma on August 12, 2007, in Coweta, Oklahoma.



Hernandez allegedly confessed to kicking Kelynn. (1) Kelynn’s mother left the apartment after a fight with Hernandez, leaving Kelynn alone in his care. When she came home it was obvious something was wrong with her baby. She called 911 and Kelynn was taken to a Tulsa hospital where the toddler died. (2)



“Whatever kind of anger that can lead up to someone doing that to a 2-and-a-half-year-old boy is just beyond me”, the toddler’s grandmother, Michelle Ebel said. Burying her grandson was the hardest thing she ever had to do said Ebel.(3)



Michael Hernandez was ordered to be held in the Wagoner County Jail without bond. He was charged with first degree murder in the kicking death of Kelynn Byrd. (1)


Documentation:

1. Illegal immigrant charged in toddler's kicking death By Staff

http://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/local/local_story_235112120.html

2. Man Accused of Killing Girlfriend's 2-Year-Old Son

http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=133717

3. Illegal Immigrant Charged In Child's Death

http://kotv.com/news/topstory/?id=134479

[dannno]

lol you are now saying ron paul is blaming mexicans?

No, YOU blame Mexicans.




you were in support of amnesty a second ago

No I was not.

[constituent]

Does anyone here support "amnesty?"

[Kludge]

Victim: Scott Ickes
An American citizen has been charged in the fatal shooting of Scott Ickes

* Date of Crime: 2007-12-08
* Location of crime:
Johnstown, PA
* Sex: M
* Age: 51

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/12/02/images/WWWSMITH.jpeg

Perpetrator: Antonio Winkleman

* Sex: M
* Arrest Status: imprisoned

A Johnstown man was sentenced to 15 to 30 years in prison for killing the man whose home he was staying in.Antonio Winkleman, 26, pleaded guilty in January to third-degree murder in the shooting death of 51-year-old Scott Ickes.



The judge who sentenced Winkleman on Tuesday said he will serve his time consecutively to a six- to 13-year sentence he is now serving in an unrelated 2006 cases involving a gun and drugs.



The killing happened Dec. 9, 2007, at Ickes' home in Elton. Winkleman was arrested five days later near Altoona.

Documentation:

1. Johnstown Man Gets 15-30 Years For Murder

http://www.wjactv.com/news/18786418/detail.html

2. Police: Alleged murder suspect, girlfriend on the run

http://www.tribune-democrat.com/cnhi/tribunedemocrat/homepage/local_story_343231917.html?keyword=leadpicturestor y

[constituent]

I'll see your Antonio Winkleman, and raise you a Jim Adkisson:


http://media.commercialappeal.com/mca/content/img/photos/2008/07/28/29shoot2.jpeg

[Chosen]

So again this is all irrelevant spam designed to detract from the issue at hand, illegal immigration and the rule of law. The two previous posts have nothing to do with illegal immigration. They are murderers.

This thread is about Ron Paul being opposed to amnesty and that there are consequences due to illegal immigration as supported by many of the left wing zealots who proclaim to support Ron Paul.

[Chosen]

No, YOU blame Mexicans.




No I was not.
Of course. People from Mexico constitute the majority of illegal aliens in the United States nearly 20 million. They are the largest foreign lobby in Washington, the Mexican has massive influence on our national policy making agenda.

You are still trying to spin things, I understand that. It is quite common for collectivists to do so when they hit an intellectual wall.

[Pennsylvania]

Does anyone here support "amnesty?"

Yes I do support amnesty. I am personally sorry that many people waded through thicker swamps of BS government protocols to get here, but as I do not believe in countries, borders, citizenship, or registration by other means, there is no alternative but to support amnesty. I, as Ron Paul, do not support any form of welfare state, but I do not see a reason to target "illegals" because of our own faulty policies.

[Chosen]

Yes I do support amnesty. I am personally sorry that many people waded through thicker swamps of BS government protocols to get here, but as I do not believe in countries, borders, citizenship, or registration by other means, there is no alternative but to support amnesty.

I don't understand what you mean by no alternative as it relates to what you have listed. You seem to be listing what you believe in then projecting the result as a solution for other people.

[Original_Intent]

I don't think we should deport them (unless they break other laws) There are just too many/too expensive.

Just levy a $50,000 fine for anyone hiring an undocumented worker. Per incident.
There would be a mass exodus.

Then if there REALLY are jobs that Americans won't do (which in the near future may be a lot less than previously thought) crank out the work visas and give anyone that goes through that a path to citizneship.

[Pennsylvania]

I don't understand what you mean by no alternative as it relates to what you have listed. You seem to be listing what you believe in then projecting the result as a solution for other people.

If I do not believe in countries or borders, then having crossed a border into "our" land violates no principle of mine. I don't feel anyone should have to fear being rounded up and sent home for coming here. That is the alternative.

[Chosen]

I don't think we should deport them (unless they break other laws) There are just too many/too expensive.

Just levy a $50,000 fine for anyone hiring an undocumented worker. Per incident.
There would be a mass exodus.

Then if there REALLY are jobs that Americans won't do (which in the near future may be a lot less than previously thought) crank out the work visas and give anyone that goes through that a path to citizneship.This isn't the problem.

It is that there are ALREADY fines on the books. Everything is in place, everything is there. It is that we have delved into Cosmopolitan law which permanently weakens our sovereignty. The government has done everything it can to prevent enforcement.

There is no economic solution to the law. If you do not enforce it then you will ensure a rapid descent into rule BY law. This has already occurred.

The amnesty issue helped the government to learn there are no repercussions for its behavior.

[Chosen]

If I do not believe in countries or borders, then having crossed a border into "our" land violates no principle of mine. I don't feel anyone should have to fear being rounded up and sent home for coming here. That is the alternative.

Then you also do not believe in Revolution, you are an anarchist.

How do you resolve being a Ron Paul Conservative then?

[Pennsylvania]

Then you also do not believe in Revolution, you are an anarchist.

I do accept revolution as a viable means of overthrowing tyranny. I'm sorry but I don't see how revolution is inconsistent with anything I've said so far.


How do you resolve being a Ron Paul Conservative then?

I do not tend to identify as conservative, unless using the term as a word of convenience in everyday conversation.

[constituent]

Yes I do support amnesty. I am personally sorry that many people waded through thicker swamps of BS government protocols to get here, but as I do not believe in countries, borders, citizenship, or registration by other means, there is no alternative but to support amnesty.

:applause:

I was kinda just picking at Chosen's insanity.

I don't support amnesty, but I do support getting lunatics like Chosen out of my life and the lives of others. Furthermore, individual states may determine to allow within their borders those they choose to allow. That is, if we really believe in the "rule of law." Of course, I know for a fact that's not what Chosen supports, he's just using this pedestal to push his fear induced, hate-filled collectivist agenda.

Amnesty? Amnesty from what? An unconstitutional agenda pushed by this nation's lowest common denominator (that being "Chosen"--the redneck messiah--and his ilk)?

Furthermore, these border nazis get all hyped-up over a misdemeanor, start talking about shooting people and what not. Ridiculous.

[constituent]

How do you resolve being a Ron Paul Conservative then?

You advocate militarizing the border, care to resolve that with being a "Ron Paul Conservative?"

You advocate eminent domain, care to resolve that with being a "Ron Paul Conservative?"

[Chosen]

:applause:

I was kinda just picking at Chosen's insanity.

I don't support amnesty, but I do support getting lunatics like Chosen out of my life and the lives of others. Furthermore, individual states may determine to allow within their borders those they choose allow. That is, if we really believe in the "rule of law." Of course, I know for a fact that's not what Chosen supports, he's just using this pedestal to push his fear induced, hate-filled collectivist agenda.

Amnesty? Amnesty from what? An unconstitutional agenda pushed by this nation's lowest common denominator (that being "Chosen"--the redneck messiah--and his ilk)?

Furthermore, these border nazi's get all hyped-up over a misdemeanor, start talking about shooting people and what not. Ridiculous.
I think you are a sociopath. You only demonstrate that you have a limited capacity to argue subjects and then you resort to trying to limit conversation by way of spamming and trying to provoke people. You then try and horde information and attempt to get people banned. Normal people don't do this. Most normal folks get consumed by emotional interactions. You, as indicated in most of your posts here only want to win. Not by issue, not by content, just the desire to win.

I also, believe you are a sociopath because you try and recruit others. It may be some sort of pityplay. You telling the mods you've been here since the beginning etc. You used the pity play on Josh Lowry to try and prevent your expulsion.

If you were just arguing a point well, that would be one thing. But mostly you are just a sociopath trying to "win."

As you have admitted thus far, you want to prevent those who have differing opinions from having a voice.

This I believe, as reviewing your many posts and dozens of daily conflicts and complaints from many folks on this board indicates.

Constituent description:

Most people with a conscience find it very difficult to even imagine what it would be like to be without one. Combine this with a sociopath's efforts to blend in, and the result is that most sociopaths go undetected.

Because they go undetected, they wreak havoc on their family, on people they work with, and on anyone who tries to be their friend. A sociopath deceives, takes what he (or she) wants, and hurts people without any remorse. Sociopaths don't feel guilty. They don't feel sorry for what they've done. They go through life taking what they want and giving nothing back. They manipulate and deceive and convincingly lie without the slightest second thought. They leave a path of confusion and upset in their wake.

Who are these people? Why are they the way they are? Apparently it has little to do with upbringing. Many studies have been done trying to find out what kind of childhood leads to sociopathy. So far, nothing looks likely. They could be from any kind of family. It is partly genetic, and partly mystery.

But researchers have found that the brains of sociopaths function differently than normal people. And their brains function in a way that makes their emotional life unredeemably shallow. And yet they are capable of mimicking emotions like professional actors.

Sociopaths and psychopaths are the same thing. The original name for this disorder was "psychopath" but the general public and media confused it with "psycho" and "psychotic" so in the 1930s the name was changed to sociopath. Recently the media again caused a misperception that sociopaths were always serial killers, so now many call the condition "antisocial personality disorder (ASPD)."

But some experts think ASPD includes many things like narcissism, paranoia, etc., including sociopathy. And others think ASPD is the same thing as sociopathy, but the diagnostic criteria used to describe and diagnose ASPD is different than sociopathy, so for the purposes of this article, we'll stay with the term "sociopathy."

Sociopaths don't have normal affection with other people. They don't feel attached to others. They don't feel love. And that is why they don't have a conscience. If you harmed someone, even someone you didn't know, you would feel guilt and remorse. Why? Because you have a natural affinity for other human beings. You know how it feels to suffer, to fear, to feel anguish. You care about others.



WHAT DO THEY WANT?

This is an interesting question. Of course most of our purposes are strongly influenced by our connections and affections with others. Our relationships with others, and our love for them, give us most of the meaning in life. So if a sociopath doesn't have these things, what is left? What kind of purposes do they have?

The answer is chilling: They want to win. Take away love and relationships and all you have left is winning the game, whatever the game is. If they are in business, it is becoming rich and defeating competitors. If it is sibling rivalry, it is defeating the sibling. If it is a contest, the goal is to dominate. If a sociopath is the envious sort, winning would be making the other lose, or fail, or be frustrated or embarrassed.

A sociopath's goal is to win. And he is willing to do anything at all to win.

Sociopaths have nothing else to think about, so they can be very clever and conniving. Sociopaths are not busy being concerned with relationships or moral dilemmas or conflicting feelings, so they have much more time to think about clever ways to gain your trust and stab you in the back, and how do it without anyone knowing what's happening.

One of the questions in the list above was about boredom. This is a real problem for sociopaths and they seem fanatically driven to prevent boredom. The reason it looms so large for them (and seems so strange to us) is that our relationships with people occupy a good amount of our time and attention and interest us intensely. Take that away and all you have is "playing to win" which is rather shallow and empty in comparison. So boredom is a constant problem for sociopaths and they have an incessant urge to keep up a level of stimulation, even negative stimulation (drama, worry, upset, etc.).

And here I might mention that the research shows sociopaths don't feel emotions the same way normal people do. For example, they don't experience fear as unpleasant. This goes a long way to explaining the inexplicable behavior you'll see in sociopaths. Some feelings that you and I might find intolerable might not bother them at all.

Now if you had passion about a subject and wanted to win an argument because of that, that would be one thing. But time and time again on this board you have demonstrated nothing but contempt for everyone. In my mind you are a sociopath.

[Chosen]

I do accept revolution as a viable means of overthrowing tyranny. I'm sorry but I don't see how revolution is inconsistent with anything I've said so far.



I do not tend to identify as conservative, unless using the term as a word of convenience in everyday conversation.

I guess I was finding hard to understand how you could support revolt, since the goal of revolution is to create something new. It isn't nihilism. Revolution always creates a new entity and it isn't borderless etc.

[Chosen]

Ron Paul against Amnesty in 2004:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul150.html

Amnesty and Culture

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

The dictionary defines amnesty as a general pardon for offenders by a government, and the Bush administration’s new proposal to grant legal status to millions of illegal aliens surely meets that definition. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country will not be punished, but rather rewarded with a visa. This is amnesty, plain and simple. Lawbreakers are given legal status, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa.

The president claims that America lacks the political will to deport the eight to twelve million illegal aliens already here, so we have no choice but to grant them visas. But what message does this send to the rest of the world? If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty. The Bush administration proposal does not provide a coherent immigration policy, nor does it address the urgent need for stricter control of our borders. The overwhelming majority of Americans – including legal immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded.

The immigration problem fundamentally is a welfare state problem. Some illegal immigrants – certainly not all – receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself. Since we have accepted a permanent welfare state, however, we cannot be surprised when some freeloaders and criminals are attracted to our shores. Welfare muddies the question of why immigrants want to come here.

Illegal immigrants also threaten to place a tremendous strain on federal social entitlement programs. Under the Bush proposal, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs – programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning. Social Security is in serious trouble already, and sending benefits abroad to millions of illegal aliens who once worked here will cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. Every American who hopes to collect Social Security someday should stridently oppose the President’s proposal.

Financial considerations aside, we cannot continue to ignore the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. This is a basic human desire that Americans understand, especially when so many immigrants are born into hopeless poverty in their own nations. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. More importantly, we expect immigrants to respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government. After all, a lack of respect for the rule of law causes much of the poverty around the world that immigrants seek to escape.

Problems arise when immigrants refuse to assimilate and show little interest in becoming American citizens. 100 years ago, immigrants arrived in America after dangerous journeys fully prepared to embrace their new country. In most cases, returning home was not an option. Most led very hard lives, took pride in American citizenship, and asked for nothing but the opportunity to work. Today, however, some immigrants travel between countries frequently, enjoying the benefits of America but showing no desire to become Americans. Some even display hostility toward America and our ideals, joining the chorus of voices demanding that the United States become a multicultural society that rejects our own history. It is this cultural conflict that soon must be addressed, and the president’s amnesty proposal simply turns a blind eye to the problem.

[Deborah K]

I think you are a sociopath. You only demonstrate that you have a limited capacity to argue subjects and then you resort to trying to limit conversation by way of spamming and trying to provoke people. You then try and horde information and attempt to get people banned. Normal people don't do this. Most normal folks get consumed by emotional interactions. You, as indicated in most of your posts here only want to win. Not by issue, not by content, just the desire to win.

I also, believe you are a sociopath because you try and recruit others. It may be some sort of pityplay. You telling the mods you've been here since the beginning etc. You used the pity play on Josh Lowry to try and prevent your expulsion.

If you were just arguing a point well, that would be one thing. But mostly you are just a sociopath trying to "win."

As you have admitted thus far, you want to prevent those who have differing opinions from having a voice.

This I believe, as reviewing your many posts and dozens of daily conflicts and complaints from many folks on this board indicates.

Constituent description:



Now if you had passion about a subject and wanted to win an argument because of that, that would be one thing. But time and time again on this board you have demonstrated nothing but contempt for everyone. In my mind you are a sociopath.

I agree with this assessment of this individual. This person is not here to debate issues in a respectful way or to learn anything. This person is here to create conflict and disharmony.

[constituent]

I think you are a sociopath.

Says the resident sociopath. I've noticed you have a knack for projection. "Arrogant," "Narcissistic," "Incest," "Child Molestation," all those negative qualities that you feel compelled to attribute incessantly (lol) to others, I'm quite certain are reflections of your own weaknesses.



You only demonstrate that you have a limited capacity to argue subjects

LoL, like I've said in the past, I'm done being nice to stupid. Look at your methods of argumentation, and then consider why you get the responses you do.



You then try and horde information and attempt to get people banned.

What actions did I take to try to get you banned, pray tell?



Normal people don't do this. Most normal folks get consumed by emotional interactions.

You are the judge of normal? That's f*n hilarious. Tell it to your minutemen trailer trash buddies over a beer while the five of you sit around hating mexicans all day, k?



You, as indicated in most of your posts here only want to win.

Wrong again, you're really on a roll. I am an advocate of liberty for all, you are an advocate of the police state. You are my enemy.

Fortunately we've met on the computer, were this real life you would have gotten the baby seal treatment long ago. You can take my word for it, or come down to Austin and find out for yourself. Consider this your invitation.



It may be some sort of pityplay. You telling the mods you've been here since the beginning etc. You used the pity play on Josh Lowry to try and prevent your expulsion.

Wrong again. I haven't contacted the mods. The mods (well a mod.), however, has contacted me when your buddy went crying to him about the "unnecessary aggravation" that I was causing her. Talk about a pity play, I can go into this further if you'd like.


If you were just arguing a point well, that would be one thing. But mostly you are just a sociopath trying to "win."

Wrong again, more projection, your idiocy just never quits.



As you have admitted thus far, you want to prevent those who have differing opinions from having a voice.

Wrong again, you're free to voice your opinion, however you seem determined to limit mine.

"This I believe, as reviewing your many posts and dozens of daily conflicts and complaints from many folks on this board indicates."



In my mind you are a sociopath.

In my mind, you are much much worse.

[constituent]

I agree with this assessment of this individual. This person is not here to debate issues in a respectful way or to learn anything. This person is here to create conflict and disharmony.

So you do care to pipe up?

Funny, I just mentioned you above:


Wrong again. I haven't contacted the mods. The mods (well a mod.), however, has contacted me when your buddy went crying to him about the "unnecessary aggravation" that I was causing her. Talk about a pity play, I can go into this further if you'd like.

I debated nicely with you, until you insisted on maintaining your insults/arrogance/ignorance, and you got what you gave (given your need to take a cheap shot in this thread, I'd expect more in the future if your present approach continues).

Then you go crying to a mod. I believe "Chosen" (the minuteman messiah) and his assessment above more accurately size you up. Your running to ronpaulhawaii (pity play) only supports this.

We can go into it, if you like?

I don't see where you would stand to benefit though, nor him.

Decision is yours...

(funny thing, I had already moved on)

K? Thx.

[constituent]

I guess I was finding hard to understand how you could support revolt

You support revolt? Mr. "Rule of Law" himself?

Go figure.

[Deborah K]

So you do care to pipe up?

I debated nicely with you, until you insisted on maintained your insults/ignorance, and you got what you gave.

Then you go crying to a mod. I believe the assessment more accurately sizes you up, your running to ronpaulhawaii only supports this.

We can go into it, if you like?

I don't see where you would stand to benefit though.

Decision is yours...

K? Thx.

Look creep, you came on a thread and made a false accusation because you failed to read my argument beforehand. THAT is how this whole thing started. Then you went on and on and on in another thread with your condscensions and insults, at which point I brought a mod into it, which is protocol, you dumbass.
You seem to have a habit of doing this to people you don't agree with because you can't rely on facts to back up your positions.

You have nothing of any substantial value to contribute to this forum, WHY are you here??

(how's that for a little taste of your own medicine)

[constituent]

Look creep, you came on a thread and made a false accusation because you failed to read my argument beforehand. THAT is how this whole thing started. Then you went on and on and on in another thread with your condscensions and insults, at which point I brought a mod into it, which is protocol, you dumbass.
You seem to have a habit of doing this to people you don't agree with because you can't rely on facts to back up your positions.

You have nothing of any substantial value to contribute to this forum, WHY are you here??

(how's that for a little taste of your own medicine)

LoL, thought I was on ignore?

You made such a public spectacle of it and all....


You have nothing of any substantial value to contribute to this forum, WHY are you here??

I'd venture to guess there are more than a few who would disagree with your assessment.


I might address the rest later. I'd particularly like to get into your "pity play"

[worl]

Yes I do support amnesty. I am personally sorry that many people waded through thicker swamps of BS government protocols to get here, but as I do not believe in countries, borders, citizenship, or registration by other means, there is no alternative but to support amnesty. I, as Ron Paul, do not support any form of welfare state, but I do not see a reason to target "illegals" because of our own faulty policies.

You have the same view as most of our gov. officials & corp. america since they also support the north american union & the new world order which means the distruction of our constitution & sovorenty. No states rights since you don't want border's. You would be considered a globalist with these views.

[KenInMontiMN]

Federal borders actually are a legit Federal issue, but things have turned around so topsy-turvy that the Feds drop the ball on their legit duties, for decades, while expanding their reach into unconstitutional directions. The loser in that equation: American citizens; the winner: foreign nationals. If you have reps in DC that support amnesty, and therefore further dissolution of our borders, you have a globalist/internationalist on your hands who could care less about the people he or she is elected to represent.

[Deborah K]

LoL, thought I was on ignore?

You made such a public spectacle of it and all....



I'd venture to guess there are more than a few who would disagree with your assessment.


I might address the rest later. I'd particularly like to get into your "pity play"

You are the public spectacle. All anyone need do is read your posts to see how condescending you are to people.

Defending onesself against an attacker does not a pity party make. Speaking of "projecting". :rolleyes: Hypocricy abounds.

And yes, I took you off of ignore because it was recommended that I flag your vitriol. And if it's a fight you want, it's a fight you'll get. Someone needs to put your silly ass in place.

[constituent]

You are the public spectacle. All anyone need do is read your posts to see how condescending you are to people.



Defending onesself against an attacker does not a pity party make. Speaking of "projecting". :rolleyes: Hypocricy abounds.

An attacker, eh? Like the buzzword. You ready to get into your pity play? I see you alluding to it already...

That said, pwnage ≠ attack. You'll be well served to learn the difference.



And yes, I took you off of ignore because it was recommended that I flag your vitriol. And if it's a fight you want, it's a fight you'll get. Someone needs to put your silly ass in place.


http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/texas2_gilchrist_200.jpg

lol, keep reaching.

"A fight I want," eh? Funny, I seem to remember your comment against me as being what has set off this most recent (yet again tiresome) exchange (see your post above, your first and only in this thread, mind you). I recommend taking it to PMs, lest it get really ugly in here (i would prefer it didn't, the choice is yours to make though).

[LibertyEagle]

Yes I do support amnesty. I am personally sorry that many people waded through thicker swamps of BS government protocols to get here, but as I do not believe in countries, borders, citizenship, or registration by other means, there is no alternative but to support amnesty. I, as Ron Paul, do not support any form of welfare state, but I do not see a reason to target "illegals" because of our own faulty policies.

"A nation without borders is no nation at all" -- Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

[constituent]

"A nation without borders is no nation at all" -- Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

Did Ron Paul say that, or just the blogger at the site?

You know the answer, I find it telling that you would misattribute the quote to suit your purpose though.

[LibertyEagle]

Did Ron Paul say that, or just the blogger at the site?

You know the answer, I find it telling that you would misattribute the quote to suit your purpose though.

No, Constituent, I'm pretty darned sure he said that. It was on his campaign page that related to illegal immigration.

I find it telling that you don't know that and would claim that I was lying.

[constituent]

No, Constituent, I'm pretty darned sure he said that. It was on his campaign page that related to illegal immigration. If I wasn't, I would not have said it.


Try again.

RonPaul.com is his "campaign page?"

No, it's not. Again, you know that.

And if you're "pretty darned sure," might "check your premise."

[Pennsylvania]

You have the same view as most of our gov. officials & corp. america since they also support the north american union & the new world order which means the distruction of our constitution & sovorenty. No states rights since you don't want border's. You would be considered a globalist with these views.

Worl, there is a difference between me and a globalist in that a globalist supports massive centralization, I.E. world government. I am on the other end of the spectrum. It is true that in both scenarios the effect on borders is similar, but the worldviews are drastically different, so I cannot be considered a globalist anymore than Ron Paul can be considered an isolationist. :)

We are dealing with many shades of gray here. States "rights" are better than undue federal power because they embody the spirit of decentralization. It is easier for a government to serve its people when that government is smaller, yes I agree here, and that is why I support these 10th amendment measures recently undertaken by many of our state legislatures, including my own. However, individual rights still trump states rights, and when there is a conflict between a State right, and an individual right, the individual must always be favored. This is why I see little need for states, borders, etc.., except as mere convenience terms.

[pcosmar]

Did Ron Paul say that, or just the blogger at the site?

You know the answer, I find it telling that you would misattribute the quote to suit your purpose though.

You might want to read through the Ron Paul Library. He makes his position and points very plain.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=5

I tend to agree with him.

"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."
Ron Paul, RonPaul2008.com, May 2007

[constituent]

You might want to read through the Ron Paul Library. He makes his position and points very plain.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=5

I tend to agree with him.

The question is about the origins of the quote, but thanks for the perspective.

That said, I find this part interesting


The bill passed yesterday requires the Homeland Security Department to gain "operational control" of the country's international borders, authorizes the construction of approximately 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border, requires a study of implementing security systems along the U.S.-Canadian border, and directs the department to evaluate the ability of personnel to stop fleeing vehicles at the border.

I thought ol' Ron was opposed to the Department of Homeland Security. Wonder what gives?

[LibertyEagle]

Try again.

RonPaul.com is his "campaign page?"

No, it's not. Again, you know that.

And if you're "pretty darned sure," might "check your premise."

I didn't say it was, Constituent, but they have duped the Issues from his campaign page.

I feel quite comfortable in saying what I did. If you want to call me a liar, I suggest you prove it.

[constituent]

I didn't say it was, Constituent

I know I didn't imagine this:


"A nation without borders is no nation at all" -- Ron Paul

When you follow a quote with someone's name in the manner displayed above, it is called "attribution." This is a false attribution.


I feel quite comfortable in saying what I did. If you want to call me a liar, I suggest you prove it.

Consider it proven, but don't take my word for it. Take your word for it. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2001423&postcount=37)

[Deborah K]

constituent;2001413 I recommend taking it to PMs, lest it get really ugly in here (i would prefer it didn't, the choice is yours to make though

All you have to do is back the fuck off and it'll be over. The choice is YOURS to make!

[LibertyEagle]

I thought ol' Ron was opposed to the Department of Homeland Security. Wonder what gives?
Border Patrol is not the same thing as Homeland Security.


On Illegal Immigration and Border Security

Illegal immigration is on the forefront of many Americans’ minds lately and with good reason. The Center for Immigration Studies has recently reported that our immigrant population is now 37 million, up from 27 million in 1997. 1 in 3 of these immigrants are here illegally. We have a problem that has exploded in the last 10 years with no appreciable change in border security since September 11 when we were supposed to take a hard look at the problem.

We have security issues at home and our resources are running thin. Our education system is stretched, and immigration accounts for virtually all the national increase in public school enrollment in the last 2 decades. There is a worker present in 78% of immigrant households using at least one major welfare program, according to the same study. It’s no surprise then that often times these immigrants can afford to work for lower wages. They are subsidized by our government to do so.

Right now we are subsidizing a lot of illegal immigration with our robust social programs and it is an outrage that instead of coming to the United States as a land of opportunity, many come for the security guaranteed by government forced transfer payments through our welfare system. I have opposed giving federal assistance to illegal immigrants and have introduced legislation that ends this practice. In the last major House-passed immigration bill I attempted to introduce an amendment that would make illegal immigrants ineligible for any federal assistance. Unfortunately, that amendment was ruled "not relevant" to immigration reform. I believe it is very relevant to taxpayers, however, who are being taken advantage of through the welfare system. Illegal immigrants should never be eligible for public schooling, social security checks, welfare checks, free healthcare, food stamps, or any other form government assistance.

The anchor baby phenomenon has also been very problematic. Simply being born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents should not trigger automatic citizenship. This encourages many dangerous behaviors and there are many unintended consequences as a result of this blanket policy. I am against amnesty and I have introduced an amendment to the Constitution (H.J. Res 46) which will end this form of amnesty.

I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders. For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation – we don’t have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs.

The anger is understandable when it comes to illegal immigration and the problems with our borders. I will continue to fight in Congress for more effective ways to address these issues in keeping with the Constitutional mandate to protect America .
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst120207.htm

[pcosmar]

I thought ol' Ron was opposed to the Department of Homeland Security. Wonder what gives?

He does, however it exists and he recognizes that.
The Border Patrol is now incorporated in that agency.

[constituent]

"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."
Ron Paul, RonPaul2008.com, May 2007

Now, that is a correct attribution.

[LibertyEagle]

Consider it proven, but don't take my word for it.

You proved nothing, Constituent.

There's got to be a cached version of his Issues page from the campaign website out there someplace. Help me find it and we can settle this.

[constituent]

All you have to do is back the fuck off and it'll be over. The choice is YOURS to make!

You made me lol.

[constituent]

You proved nothing, Constituent.

There's got to be a cached version of his Issues page from the campaign website out there someplace. Help me find it and we can settle this.

pcosmar beat you to it, i'll concede that point. still a false attribution though when you assigned the quotes origin to ronpaul.com, let's not get into the merits of their failure to properly quote and cite their source.

[LibertyEagle]

Now, that is a correct attribution.

Yes, you're right, that quote sounds correct.

Now, why you seem to think that is materially different from what I said, I'm not too sure. But, yes I omitted a word inadvertently.

[constituent]

He does, however it exists and he recognizes that.
The Border Patrol is now incorporated in that agency.

Ooook, so he only opposes it at his convenience, and supports it when doing so is politically expedient?

(n/m, that deserves a thread of its own, feel free to start it)

[pcosmar]

Consider it proven, but don't take my word for it. [/URL]

The only thing Proven is your inability to read and comprehend.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=5

"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."
Ron Paul, RonPaul2008.com, May 2007

I have also heard him say this with his own mouth in an interview.

[pcosmar]

Ooook, so he only opposes it at his convenience, and supports it when doing so is politically expedient?

(n/m, that deserves a thread of its own, feel free to start it)

Now you are just being obstinate and friggin stupid. :(

[AuH20]

If Ron Paul is an isolationist, who's wary of foreign entanglement, why he would want "open borders"? Counterproductive to say the least, if you support moving huge blocks of foreign nationals into your native country.

[constituent]

If Ron Paul is an isolationist, who's wary of foreign entanglement, why he would want "open borders"? Counterproductive to say the least, if you support moving huge blocks of foreign nationals into your native country.

What you're missing is

1) it is impossible to close borders, ask the USSR

2) by increasing the risk of re-return, you create a disincentive for those who are here illegally to ever leave.

Clamping down and militarizing the border is the very essence of counterproductive.

[LibertyEagle]

You have the same view as most of our gov. officials & corp. america since they also support the north american union & the new world order which means the distruction of our constitution & sovorenty. No states rights since you don't want border's. You would be considered a globalist with these views.

That's what I was thinking. They may not believe in the NAU or globalism, per se, but it appears that their stance is doing nothing but helping those who do.

[constituent]

Now you are just being obstinate and friggin stupid. :(

Sorry, did I insult you?

I certainly could, as you've provided no shortage of cannon fodder.

Overall, I like you and would prefer to avoid it, if possible. Otherwise I'd suggest climbing back into your bunker before fema comes to getcha! :p;):D

[constituent]

That's what I was thinking. They may not believe in the NAU or globalism, per se, but it appears that their stance is doing nothing but helping those who do.

You might not believe in a militarized police state, per se, but it appears your stance is doing nothing but helping those who do.

[AuH20]

What you're missing is

1) it is impossible to close borders, ask the USSR

2) by increasing the risk of re-return, you create a disincentive for those who are here illegally to ever leave.

Clamping down and militarizing the border is the very essence of counterproductive.

so what do you do? Embrace the welfare state and acquiesce to the demands of your transient guests? In a perfect world, I wish we could harbor all the exploited people of the world and enhance their futures, but we have finite resources and a crumbling political system. We're in no position to assimilate millions of mexicans and OTMs, who already the distrust their imperial neighbor to the North. I see it as lose-lose. Thats one of the reasons why we have an immigration quota system, so as to discourage a population exodus like this from occuring.

[LibertyEagle]

What you're missing is

1) it is impossible to close borders, ask the USSR

2) by increasing the risk of re-return, you create a disincentive for those who are here illegally to ever leave.

Clamping down and militarizing the border is the very essence of counterproductive.

Yes. The better approach is to take away the incentives. But, as we all have seen, our POS government servants won't do their jobs, because it suits their ends to have our country overrun by illegal aliens.

Now with all the violence spilling over the border by the drug cartel, what do you think should be done about that? Not to mention the fact that illegal aliens are killing Americans with greater frequency.

[constituent]

Now with all the violence spilling over the border by the drug cartel, what do you think should be done about that?

End the unl(awful) war on drugs and set the captives free, you?

[constituent]

so what do you do? Embrace the welfare state and acquiesce to the demands of your transient guests?

Who said that? I oppose the welfare state, and all of its vices, absolutely (though absolutism is dangerous, this is one issue on which I refuse to budge).

Of course, no one seems to be advocating the right solution, instead they seem to be cheerleading the exact wrong one.

[AuH20]

Who said that? I oppose the welfare state, and all of its vices, absolutely (though absolutism is dangerous, this is one issue on which I refuse to budge).

Of course, no one seems to be advocating the right solution, instead they seem to be cheerleading the exact wrong one.

But you're inadvertertently fueling the welfare state by asking these people to take residence here. I don't think you can separate the two. Look at the lists of hospitals shut down in California for instance.

[constituent]

But you're inadvertertently fueling the welfare state by asking these people to take residence here. I don't think you can separate the two. Look at the lists of hospitals shut down in California for instance.

I didn't ask anyone to take residence here... You're confusing the "individual" with the "collective."



Look at the lists of hospitals shut down in California for instance.

So then your issue is with federal regulations that require all patients be admitted, regardless of ability to pay or valid proof of residence...

[LibertyEagle]

End the unl(awful) war on drugs and set the captives free, you?

Sure, I'm for that too.

I don't think that's going to stop the massive influx of illegal aliens though. You're right though, that it would go a long way towards stopping the drug cartels trying to get in our country. Since our gummit is unlikely to do that anytime soon, what should be done in the meantime?

[constituent]

Since our gummit is unlikely to do that anytime soon, what should be done in the meantime?

Lobbying for it.

Since our requests so frequently fall on deaf ears anyway, I'd rather be asking for the right solutions than the wrong ones.

[LibertyEagle]

Lobbying for it.

Since our requests so frequently fall on deaf ears anyway, I'd rather be asking for the right solutions than the wrong ones.

That's fair and I agree.

But, as a Texan, I'm all for using the National Guard to protect the border until we get that done.

[constituent]

as a Texan, I'm all for using the National Guard to protect the border until we get that done.

You're a "texan," or do you just live here?
:p;):D

[insert friendly elbow nudge here]

;):)

[pcosmar]

Sorry, had to step away to help a neighbor.


Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
Now you are just being obstinate and friggin stupid.

Sorry, did I insult you?

I certainly could, as you've provided no shortage of cannon fodder.

Overall, I like you and would prefer to avoid it, if possible. Otherwise I'd suggest climbing back into your bunker before fema comes to getcha! :p;):D
No insult, you could try but what's the point.
I was not being insulting, sorry if you took it that way, It was more of an observation.

oh yeah,
No "bunker" here. I am at home in this environment. The terrain and environment are all the defenses I need.
But thank you for your "concern".

[LibertyEagle]

You're a "texan," or do you just live here?
:p;):D

[insert friendly elbow nudge here]

;):)

I think living here for TWENTY FOUR years qualifies me, yeah.

[The_Orlonater]

Forcibly pushing illegal immigrants will be both totalitarian and expensive. Cut off the welfare and their "rights." It will be a lot of cheaper, many illegal immigrants are productive workers in society. Hell, many of them work in most of the restaurants in Chicago, but anybody can get a job there if you can cook well.

[constituent]

I think living here for TWENTY FOUR years qualifies me, yeah.

No, neither does birth.

Texan is a way of life, not a geographic proximity.

[Mesogen]

We must reject amnesty for illegal integration in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who eat in whites only establishments and attend whites only schools illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

[Pennsylvania]

whites only establishments and attend whites only schools

???

[Feenix566]

Does anyone here support "amnesty?"

Yes.


We must reject amnesty for illegal integration in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who eat in whites only establishments and attend whites only schools illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.


You've obviously just walked out of a time capsule, after having been frozen for fifty years or so. You'll want to catch up on your history. We had this whole big thing called the "civil rights movement". I'm sure you'll find it tantilizing.

[Mesogen]

???

yeah!

We don't want any lawbreakers roaming around do we?


You've obviously just walked out of a time capsule, after having been frozen for fifty years or so. You'll want to catch up on your history. We had this whole big thing called the "civil rights movement". I'm sure you'll find it tantilizing.

Whoa there! Civil rights? Like the right to find a job and work?

[constituent]

Yes.


I'd like to hear your perspective...

[Pennsylvania]

That's what I was thinking. They may not believe in the NAU or globalism, per se, but it appears that their stance is doing nothing but helping those who do.

LE, I think this is rather unfair. In the same breath one might say that denying amnesty supports the agenda of White Nationalists. I do not support globalization as I am sure that you do not support White Nationalism. :)

[Pennsylvania]

We don't want any lawbreakers roaming around do we?


What does law-breaking have to do with "whites-only" establishments?

[pcosmar]

What does law-breaking have to do with "whites-only" establishments?

Straw man argument. Misdirection. Derailment. Obfuscation. :p

[Feenix566]

I'd like to hear your perspective...

I think that's the first time anyone has ever actually ASKED for my perspective on a forum. All the other times I've just inserted it whether anyone wanted it there or not. :)

My perspective is this: When new people join our community, which in this case includes the entire population of the United States, that not only increases the supply of labor, but it simultaneously increases the demand for goods. Just like everything in economics, there are two sides to the coin. So many people fail to see the other side.

Immigrants buy food, and clothing, and electronics, and pay rent, and phone bills, and drive cars, and consume goods just as much as everyone else. All of these activities create jobs.

There is literally no limit to how many jobs can exist. The more consumers there are, the more jobs there will be. So when you say that immigrants are taking jobs, that only displays a lack of perspective on the whole issue of economics.

Economic prosperity depends on division of labor and specialization. That's why we've come as far as we have. The more diverse your work force is, the more specialized each member of the community can be, and hence the better all the widgets we produce will be.

Immigration is good for the economy. That's why I support amnesty and open borders.

[pcosmar]

and hence the better all the widgets we produce will be.

.

We no longer produce widgets, All widget production has been relocated.

[Feenix566]

We no longer produce widgets, All widget production has been relocated.

That's not true at all. The United States produces $13 trillion worth of widgets per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Don't be fooled by the hype.

[Mesogen]

What does law-breaking have to do with "whites-only" establishments?

There used to be laws against blacks patronizing establishments labeled, by law, as whites only.

Then people started breaking the law. There were lawbreakers everywhere.

Then the law changed. They had amnesty.

[constituent]

I think that's the first time anyone has ever actually ASKED for my perspective on a forum. All the other times I've just inserted it whether anyone wanted it there or not. :)

My perspective is this: When new people join our community, which in this case includes the entire population of the United States, that not only increases the supply of labor, but it simultaneously increases the demand for goods. Just like everything in economics, there are two sides to the coin. So many people fail to see the other side.

Immigrants buy food, and clothing, and electronics, and pay rent, and phone bills, and drive cars, and consume goods just as much as everyone else. All of these activities create jobs.

There is literally no limit to how many jobs can exist. The more consumers there are, the more jobs there will be. So when you say that immigrants are taking jobs, that only displays a lack of perspective on the whole issue of economics.

Economic prosperity depends on division of labor and specialization. That's why we've come as far as we have. The more diverse your work force is, the more specialized each member of the community can be, and hence the better all the widgets we produce will be.

Immigration is good for the economy. That's why I support amnesty and open borders.

I could not agree more! Thanks for sharing!

[LibertyEagle]

LE, I think this is rather unfair. In the same breath one might say that denying amnesty supports the agenda of White Nationalists. I do not support globalization as I am sure that you do not support White Nationalism. :)

I did not say you support it, but I think you are going along with the agenda that the globalists are using, in part, to take down this country. Neither big government political party clearly wants to stop illegal immigration. Why do you think that is?

We have illegal aliens here now that came over to our country, not because they wanted to have an opportunity to succeed and be free, but to take a good portion of it for Aztlan and are venomous towards Americans. What's more, some seem to think we owe them every handout under the sun. This is frickin' ridiculous.

We had immigration quotas for a reason. Maybe they were too low. Don't know. But, they didn't overweight immigrants from any one country, so as not to unduly change our culture in this country. They also wanted people who wanted to learn our history and become an American. Frankly, I've met a number of immigrants who know a lot more about our foundation and apparently long lost principles, than people who were born here. They also made sure that they weren't carrying any diseases, etc., and could be self-sufficient. I don't think this was a bad idea.

That said, I don't want a fortress either and didn't have one, single, problem with a few Mexicans coming over here to work. It's no longer like that anymore though. I think the only way we're really going to stop this is to get rid of the handouts. But, in the meantime, what do we do? I'm getting pretty tired of hearing about people killed by illegal aliens.

National defense is actually a legitimate function of our federal government. It's time they did their job. My opinion, anyway.

[Pennsylvania]

I did not say you support it, but I think you are going along with the agenda that the globalists are using, in part, to take down this country.

Do you agree with me though in that saying that my position supports the agenda of globalists is equivalent to yours supporting that of white nationalists? Why or why not?


Neither big government political party clearly wants to stop illegal immigration. Why do you think that is?

Is this really the case? I honestly don't know, and don't use either party's positions to form my own. Surely Bush didn't do a good job securing the border. But also, McCain, who supported amnesty, is hardly a good representation of republicanism. I personally do not know the positions of Romney, Huckabee, Jindal, or Palin on amnesty. Do they support lenient borders as well?


We have illegal aliens here now that came over to our country, not because they wanted to have an opportunity to succeed and be free, but to take a good portion of it for Aztlan and are venomous towards Americans. What's more, some seem to think we owe them every handout under the sun. This is frickin' ridiculous.

Yes that mentality is ridiculous, I can agree with that. Can I ask where you've gotten this information from? I wouldn't say that that isn't the case for some of them, but as Ron Paul recognizes that most wars are fought for economics reasons, I recognize that most human migrations occur for economic reasons. Such was the case with my own Irish ancestors.

[worl]

Worl, there is a difference between me and a globalist in that a globalist supports massive centralization, I.E. world government. I am on the other end of the spectrum. It is true that in both scenarios the effect on borders is similar, but the worldviews are drastically different, so I cannot be considered a globalist anymore than Ron Paul can be considered an isolationist. :)

We are dealing with many shades of gray here. States "rights" are better than undue federal power because they embody the spirit of decentralization. It is easier for a government to serve its people when that government is smaller, yes I agree here, and that is why I support these 10th amendment measures recently undertaken by many of our state legislatures, including my own. However, individual rights still trump states rights, and when there is a conflict between a State right, and an individual right, the individual must always be favored. This is why I see little need for states, borders, etc.., except as mere convenience terms.
I said you have the same views as a globalist which also includes amnesty & open borders. Without a border we are not a nation, without state borders we are not a state. If the globalist agenda continues as they plan we will be the north american union & will cease to be a sovereighn nation as our founders intended & generations fought for. Illegal immigration is a part of the nau. I really don't care at all about the problems in mexico or any other country. when they come here illegaly & hold up the mex. flag & protest in our streets & take jobs from legal americans then they can expect me to dispise them & the people who become wealthy by using them as slave labor.

[LibertyEagle]

Do you agree with me though in that saying that my position supports the agenda of globalists is equivalent to yours supporting that of white nationalists? Why or why not?
I had to turn my head sideways to see the comparison, but yes, I can see what you're saying.


Is this really the case? I honestly don't know, and don't use either party's positions to form my own. Surely Bush didn't do a good job securing the border. But also, McCain, who supported amnesty, is hardly a good representation of republicanism. I personally do not know the positions of Romney, Huckabee, Jindal, or Palin on amnesty. Do they support lenient borders as well?
Clearly they don't, or they would have secured the border long ago. The Dems didn't want to do it, but the Repubs had the numbers and still did not do it. Even the legislation that WAS passed was largely not implemented because Bush refused to and there the Repubs sat, twiddling their thumbs.


Yes that mentality is ridiculous, I can agree with that. Can I ask where you've gotten this information from? I wouldn't say that that isn't the case for some of them, but as Ron Paul recognizes that most wars are fought for economics reasons, I recognize that most human migrations occur for economic reasons. Such was the case with my own Irish ancestors.
Yeah, sure. It's been talked about on this forum before, so you might find it in a search, or just google Aztlan. That would probably be your quickest way. If I get a chance, I'll try to find something for you too.

[Pennsylvania]

I said you have the same views as a globalist which also includes amnesty & open borders. Without a border we are not a nation, without state borders we are not a state. If the globalist agenda continues as they plan we will be the north american union & will cease to be a sovereighn nation as our founders intended & generations fought for. Illegal immigration is a part of the nau. I really don't care at all about the problems in mexico or any other country. when they come here illegaly & hold up the mex. flag & protest in our streets & take jobs from legal americans then they can expect me to dispise them & the people who become wealthy by using them as slave labor.

Yes I recognize that it is possible to draw similarities betwen myself and globalists based on our opinions on borders. Do you recognize the myriad differences though?

[The_Orlonater]

So again this is all irrelevant spam designed to detract from the issue at hand, illegal immigration and the rule of law. The two previous posts have nothing to do with illegal immigration. They are murderers.

This thread is about Ron Paul being opposed to amnesty and that there are consequences due to illegal immigration as supported by many of the left wing zealots who proclaim to support Ron Paul.

No it is not, it's the same nonsense you posted over an illegal immigrant killing a person. What's the difference if a person without permission(U.S. government permission) kills a person and a natural born citizen who kills somebody?
None, they should be both tried.

[The_Orlonater]

But you're inadvertertently fueling the welfare state by asking these people to take residence here. I don't think you can separate the two. Look at the lists of hospitals shut down in California for instance.

That's not true, that's is like saying that we fuel the millions of Americans on welfare because we pay our taxes.

[LibertyEagle]

That's not true, that's is like saying that we fuel the millions of Americans on welfare because we pay our taxes.

I see your point, but the reality is that until we are able to get our government back within their constitutional boundaries, the last thing we need to do is to bring in more people into this country to suck at the government teat and pickpocket what's left of our bank accounts.

After we get that done, then we can talk.

[The_Orlonater]

I see your point, but the reality is that until we are able to get our government back within their constitutional boundaries, the last thing we need to do is to bring in more people into this country to suck at the government teat and pickpocket what's left of our bank accounts.

After we get that done, then we can talk.

I promise you, if we got rid of the welfare state and the War on Drugs there won't be any more threads like this. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

I promise you, if we got rid of the welfare state and the War on Drugs there won't be any more threads like this. ;)

In the meantime though, as I said above, we don't need any additional freeloaders coming into our country to pickpocket our bank accounts.

[worl]

Yes I recognize that it is possible to draw similarities betwen myself and globalists based on our opinions on borders. Do you recognize the myriad differences though?

It's true that borders are only one similarity & I see your diferances with gov. but do you understand that amnesty & the nau is also a plan of the globalist. While you may have many conflicting beliefs with the globalist, these two are a part of their agenda.

[Conservative Christian]

Immigration and the Welfare State

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html

"More and more of my constituents are asking me when Congress will address the problem of illegal immigration. The public correctly perceives that neither political party has the courage to do what is necessary to prevent further erosion of both our border security and our national identity. As a result, immigration may be the sleeper issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.

The problem of illegal immigration will not be solved easily, but we can start by recognizing that the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the answer. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country illegally should not be rewarded with a visa. Why should lawbreakers obtain a free pass, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa?

We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants – certainly not all – receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.

Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens from taking low-wage jobs. This creates greater demand for illegal foreign labor. Welfare programs and minimum wage laws create an artificial market for labor to do the jobs Americans supposedly won’t do.

Illegal immigrants also place a tremendous strain on social entitlement programs. Under a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs – programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning.

Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government.

Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.

We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

If we took some of the steps I have outlined here – eliminating the welfare state and securing our borders – we could effectively address the problem of illegal immigration in a manner that would not undermine the freedom of American citizens. Sadly, it appears we are moving toward policies like a national ID that diminish our liberties. Like gun control, these approaches only punish the innocent, as criminals will always find a way around the law."

August 9, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.


..

[Chosen]

No it is not, it's the same nonsense you posted over an illegal immigrant killing a person. What's the difference if a person without permission(U.S. government permission) kills a person and a natural born citizen who kills somebody?
None, they should be both tried.Because that would be a crime that could have been prevented if the law had been upheld. This is the point. You may not like to see it thrown in your face, but every crime committed by an illegal alien could have been prevented. In fact, when the Border Patrol ran an operation in El Paso Texas in the 90's called Operation Hold the Line, where they decided to actually enforce the law, violent crime in El Paso dropped 80%. For some reason the "study/exercise" was then dropped and not funded? Why? Because it also meant that there was a substantial reduction in illegal immigrants coming across the borders.

Crimes committed by illegal aliens are crimes which could be prevented if the rule of law is upheld.

[Chosen]

..
Thanks for the post. For some reason the extreme leftists and anarchists have been projecting this Che like image onto Ron Paul, painting him as some Emma Goldmann or something.

[Chosen]

bump again* as some of the insane leftists (read multiple logins) are trying to spin illegal immigration into a Libertarian issue of social cause, lol.