If Immigration is your Primary Concern, Why Vote for Paul? [Archive]

Feenix566

04-10-2009, 08:21 AM

Rollo the Cat

04-10-2009, 08:35 AM

Ron Paul did touch on the immigration issue and was stonger--much stronger--than Romney or McCain. Romney was a complete fraud on the immigration issue.

Immigration is my major concern and I supported Paul for the above reason but also because I felt he would be less vulnerable to being manipulated and controlled by the establishment Republicans, who largely are open borders enthusiasts, once he got in office.

Of course, immigration is not the only issue I care about and I had plenty of other reasons for supporting Ron from the beginning.

AuH20

04-10-2009, 08:38 AM

Isn't it obvious? Paul wants to dismantle the wasteful and unconstitutional welfare state. Do you think illegals would flock here en masse if they weren't guaranteed all the goodies?

hugolp

04-10-2009, 08:39 AM

This is something I never understood during the primary. Ron Paul attracted a lot of people who seem to think that enforcing anti-immigration laws are the most important issue facing the nation today. But Ron Paul hardly ever even touched on the subject during the debates or any of his press appearances. Every candidate on the stage supported stricter enforcement of immigration law, with the notable exception of the guy who won, McCain. If you want tougher immigration enforcement, you have a lot of Repiblicans to choose from. I recall during one of the Republican debates, the candidates basically had a contest to see who could sound tougher on the issue. Mitt Romney is very anti-immigration, and he had a much better chance of winning the nomination than Ron Paul. For crying out loud, Tom Tancredo, the man who has build his entire political career on this one issue, was one of your options. If all you care about it immigration, why support Ron Paul? Why not support one of the other guys?

You either need to research better or try to lie better to promote Rommey:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-iJKwskH4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwZsBiZYocg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG-08ycEup8

RevolutionSD

04-10-2009, 08:40 AM

This is something I never understood during the primary. Ron Paul attracted a lot of people who seem to think that enforcing anti-immigration laws are the most important issue facing the nation today. But Ron Paul hardly ever even touched on the subject during the debates or any of his press appearances. Every candidate on the stage supported stricter enforcement of immigration law, with the notable exception of the guy who won, McCain. If you want tougher immigration enforcement, you have a lot of Repiblicans to choose from. I recall during one of the Republican debates, the candidates basically had a contest to see who could sound tougher on the issue. Mitt Romney is very anti-immigration, and he had a much better chance of winning the nomination than Ron Paul. For crying out loud, Tom Tancredo, the man who has build his entire political career on this one issue, was one of your options. If all you care about it immigration, why support Ron Paul? Why not support one of the other guys?

Good post/questions, I've wondered the same.
The border and abortion are the two areas I disagree with RP on.
Freedom is freedom, using violence to enforce borders is not allowing a free market in labor and goes against libertarian principles. People who think we need bureaucrats to "enforce borders" are blaming those who want to get in to the country rather than the welfare/warfare system, or government itself, for the problem.

1000-points-of-fright

04-10-2009, 08:42 AM

Because Paul had the most effective and cheapest strategy to end illegal immigration. Bring all our troops home to defend the borders, end welfare and other incentives that attract illegal immigrants, enforce current immigration laws.

Plus with his economic policies, the economy would be so much better that we could expand and simplify legal immigration.

specsaregood

04-10-2009, 08:45 AM

Good post/questions, I've wondered the same.
The border and abortion are the two areas I disagree with RP on.
Freedom is freedom, using violence to enforce borders is not allowing a free market in labor and goes against libertarian principles. People who think we need bureaucrats to "enforce borders" are blaming those who want to get in to the country rather than the welfare/warfare system, or government itself, for the problem.

I like RP's stance on immigration, because his is the freedom approach.
IIRC, he is philosophically for "open borders" and immigration BUT he also realizes that "open borders" is not compatible with our subsidizing illegal immigrants. You have to change one or the other. He pushes for stopping federal mandated subsidies to illegal immigrants (ie: hospitals) and other incentives (birthright citizenship), as opposed to using force to stop illegal immigrants.

Edit: and I believe his stance for protecting the border is more for national security reasons.
IIRC, it was a courageous moment in one of the debates when he warned against scapegoating illegal immigrants.

SWATH

04-10-2009, 08:48 AM

Some guy on the street saw my Ron Paul bumper stickers and came up to me while I was parked. He said:

"I voted for him and I didn't even know what he looked like, I still don't know who he is or what he looks like but I voted for him for two reasons, 1. I heard he wanted to balance the budget, and 2. I heard he wanted to shoot all of the Mexicans on sight. After I heard that I went out and voted for him."

I gave him a :confused:.

pcosmar

04-10-2009, 08:48 AM

attracted a lot of people who seem to think that enforcing anti-immigration laws are the most important issue facing the nation today

WTF
Who is pushing anti-immigration laws??
Ron Paul did address ILLEGAL immigration. There are some here concerned with ILLEGAL Immigration. Though it is not my "most important issue" it is a concern.

I realize that some here think that opposing ILLEGAL immigration means they are ANTI Immigration. This is simply not true.

LibertyEagle

04-10-2009, 08:56 AM

Good post/questions, I've wondered the same.
The border and abortion are the two areas I disagree with RP on.
Huh? You say you disagree with his stance, here, so you must understand that he is not pro open borders (he believes a nation without borders is no nation at all) and he is not pro-abortion. So, please explain why it is that you think the OP asked good questions? :confused:

Freedom is freedom, using violence to enforce borders is not allowing a free market in labor and goes against libertarian principles. People who think we need bureaucrats to "enforce borders" are blaming those who want to get in to the country rather than the welfare/warfare system, or government itself, for the problem.
Ok, now you're telling us what you believe. By the way, it seems clear at least to me, that RP blames the government for the problem, but, he also is a realist that we cannot allow our country to continue to be wholesale invaded by illegal aliens. This is in keeping with Thomas Jefferson's view also; as he wrote about the dangers of doing so.

ChaosControl

04-10-2009, 08:59 AM

While it isn't my primary concern, spending is, it is a somewhat important issue to me.
Ron Paul had the best real solution. A fence won't do squat, even shooting the illegals won't do squat. Remove the incentive to come here. End the welfare state.

sailor

04-10-2009, 09:03 AM

This is something I never understood during the primary. Ron Paul attracted a lot of people who seem to think that enforcing anti-immigration laws are the most important issue facing the nation today. But Ron Paul hardly ever even touched on the subject during the debates or any of his press appearances. Every candidate on the stage supported stricter enforcement of immigration law, with the notable exception of the guy who won, McCain. If you want tougher immigration enforcement, you have a lot of Repiblicans to choose from. I recall during one of the Republican debates, the candidates basically had a contest to see who could sound tougher on the issue. Mitt Romney is very anti-immigration, and he had a much better chance of winning the nomination than Ron Paul. For crying out loud, Tom Tancredo, the man who has build his entire political career on this one issue, was one of your options. If all you care about it immigration, why support Ron Paul? Why not support one of the other guys?

Because Ron Paul keeps his promises.

There is no use in being "tough" on a certain issue if you are going to try to wiggle out of it once elected.

specsaregood

04-10-2009, 09:06 AM

so you must understand that he is not pro open borders (he believes a nation without borders is no nation at all)

LE, is there a difference between "open borders" and "nation without borders"?

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that philosophically he is for the free movement of peoples -- he just realizes that this is incompatible with our incentives sytem.. Although he wants to protect the borders for national security reasons.

max

04-10-2009, 09:15 AM

If all you care about it immigration, why support Ron Paul? Why not support one of the other guys?

Because RP would take away all the freebies that draw many of these immigrants in. As to ones that want to honestly work, an RP administration would grant them work visas...but not citizenship.

He also supports defending the border...

Problem solved.

RP had an excellent immigration position...he just didn't demagogue the issue

LibertyEagle

04-10-2009, 09:17 AM

LE, is there a difference between "open borders" and "nation without borders"?
Good point. Yes, I think there is, but, I've seen quite a few that seem to think that open borders means NO borders at all.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that philosophically he is for the free movement of peoples -- he just realizes that this is incompatible with our incentives sytem.. Although he wants to protect the borders for national security reasons.

You mentioned both, so did you intend to say that he wants to enforce the borders for national security issues AND economic issues (due to our current welfare state)?

Feenix566

04-10-2009, 09:20 AM

You either need to research better or try to lie better to promote Rommey:

You're right. I'm lying to promote Romney. Damnit, the jig is up! I've been here all this time just trying to establish a reputation so that when I finally revealed that I think Romney is the greatest, you'll all listen to me and switch to Romney supporters. How did you figure me out? Guess I better go report failure to my NWO masters. They don't take these things well. I better wear a kevlar vest when I do it.

max

04-10-2009, 09:21 AM

Feenix566

04-10-2009, 09:23 AM

I realize that some here think that opposing ILLEGAL immigration means they are ANTI Immigration. This is simply not true.

Then you haven't read our immigration laws.

torchbearer

04-10-2009, 09:24 AM

because ron would follow the rule of law.

Feenix566

04-10-2009, 09:29 AM

Ok, now you're telling us what you believe. By the way, it seems clear at least to me, that RP blames the government for the problem, but, he also is a realist that we cannot allow our country to continue to be wholesale invaded by illegal aliens. This is in keeping with Thomas Jefferson's view also; as he wrote about the dangers of doing so.

You didn't address RevolutionSD's point that enforcing borders through violence is contrary to the concept of liberty. Just saying that "Thomas Jefferson said so" is not an argument for the liberty-ness of a statement.

You also didn't answer the original question.

LibertyEagle

04-10-2009, 09:31 AM

You didn't address RevolutionSD's point that enforcing borders through violence is contrary to the concept of liberty. Just saying that "Thomas Jefferson said so" is not an argument for the liberty-ness of a statement.

You also didn't answer the original question.

"If Immigration is your Primary Concern, Why Vote for Paul?"

Because you're wrong about Ron Paul's stance, that's why.

To my understanding, Ron believes we should enforce our immigration laws and defend our borders.

I realize you would like to change him into what you believe, but...

pcosmar

04-10-2009, 09:33 AM

Then you haven't read our immigration laws.

Say what??
I know a lot of Legal immigrants that are quite pissed abut Illegal immigration and amnesty.
There are many that immigrate legally every year. But there are millions with no respect for our laws that come illegally. Is that fair to those that respect our laws?

specsaregood

04-10-2009, 09:33 AM

You mentioned both, so did you intend to say that he wants to enforce the borders for national security issues AND economic issues (due to our current welfare state)?

Well i think the answer is one of philosophy vs. reality.

My understanding:
1. He wants to always enforce the borders for national security reasons. This would not change no matter our economic issue. Enforce does not necessarily mean stop all immigration (free movement of peoples) it just means that anything coming over would be inspected for national security reasons.
2. As long as we have a welfare and incentive system that subsidizes illegal workers, he wants to protect the border to keep them from coming over -- for economic reasons. If he was able to end those incentives, he would not stop the free-movement of people/workers as long as they were not a national security threat....

Jace

04-10-2009, 09:38 AM

...

torchbearer

04-10-2009, 09:39 AM

Well i think the answer is one of philosophy vs. reality.

My understanding:
1. He wants to always enforce the borders for national security reasons. This would not change no matter our economic issue. Enforce does not necessarily mean stop all immigration (free movement of peoples) it just means that anything coming over would be inspected for national security reasons.
2. As long as we have a welfare and incentive system that subsidizes illegal workers, he wants to protect the border to keep them from coming over -- for economic reasons. If he was able to end those incentives, he would not stop the free-movement of people/workers as long as they were not a national security threat....

You basically have it right.
If we didn't have a welfare state subsidizing poverty and we didn't have the warfare state creating enemies, he'd want open borders.
Until then, we must protect them. It is only logical.

acptulsa

04-10-2009, 09:42 AM

You didn't address RevolutionSD's point that enforcing borders through violence is contrary to the concept of liberty. Just saying that "Thomas Jefferson said so" is not an argument for the liberty-ness of a statement.

You also didn't answer the original question.

She has to answer every question ever posed just to open her mouth? And how many times do you need the original question answered? If you're walking through a scrapyard and don't want to be attacked by the merchandise, take the damned magnets out of your pockets! How hard is that?

LibertyEagle

04-10-2009, 09:46 AM

Well i think the answer is one of philosophy vs. reality.

My understanding:
1. He wants to always enforce the borders for national security reasons. This would not change no matter our economic issue. Enforce does not necessarily mean stop all immigration (free movement of peoples) it just means that anything coming over would be inspected for national security reasons.
No one said he was against legal immigration. Emphasis on LEGAL.

2. As long as we have a welfare and incentive system that subsidizes illegal workers, he wants to protect the border to keep them from coming over -- for economic reasons. If he was able to end those incentives, he would not stop the free-movement of people/workers as long as they were not a national security threat....

If it is just to work, I think you're right. He believes in having work programs, but, he would not make everyone that crossed the border, citizens. He's a strong advocate of national sovereignty and is against amnesty.

Catatonic

04-10-2009, 09:48 AM

No one held a candle to Dr. Paul on the immigration issue.

What planet are you on?

specsaregood

04-10-2009, 09:50 AM

but, he would not make everyone that crossed the border, citizens.

Or course I don't think I ever said that he would make everyone that crossed a citizen. I don't think we are in disagreement here.

RP had the best stance on the illegal immigration issue, simple.

cheapseats

04-10-2009, 09:55 AM

...Ron Paul is right on everything.

A different Messiah?

LibertyEagle

04-10-2009, 10:01 AM

Or course I don't think I ever said that he would make everyone that crossed a citizen. I don't think we are in disagreement here.

RP had the best stance on the illegal immigration issue, simple.

Yeah, I don't think we are either, specs. The thing is, people have different definitions of things. So, I wanted to be as specific as possible, for anyone else reading this stuff.

Minuteman2008

04-10-2009, 10:07 AM

An absolutist position on libertarianism is utopian fantasy. You would have half the world's population coming here if you allowed it....

We are already at a point where the third world immigrant voting bloc will soon make it impossible for Obama and a leftist Congress to ever be dislodged now....

And this is precisely what amazes me about the libertarians who refuse to step out of their theoretical bubble. With massive immigration from the third world, any supposed liberty movement will be washed away in a tide of voters seeking more handouts from their government. Reducing the size and scope of government will quickly become impossible. Real life doesn't always conform to ideology, and it's incredible that some people can't see that.

Feenix566

04-10-2009, 10:11 AM

And this is precisely what amazes me about the libertarians who refuse to step out of their theoretical bubble. With massive immigration from the third world, any supposed liberty movement will be washed away in a tide of voters seeking more handouts from their government. Reducing the size and scope of government will quickly become impossible. Real life doesn't always conform to ideology, and it's incredible that some people can't see that.

That's only true if you have a purely democratic system, which inevitably devolves into two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. We believe in a constitutionally limited government. The welfare state is prohibited by the Constituion.

Besides, I don't compromise my principles in favor of what is politically expedient.

But anyway, getting back on topic, why not vote for Tancredo?

hugolp

04-10-2009, 10:15 AM

You're right. I'm lying to promote Romney. Damnit, the jig is up! I've been here all this time just trying to establish a reputation so that when I finally revealed that I think Romney is the greatest, you'll all listen to me and switch to Romney supporters. How did you figure me out? Guess I better go report failure to my NWO masters. They don't take these things well. I better wear a kevlar vest when I do it.

Hey, nice try. A bit over the top, but nice try. You did not answer to the videos where Ron Paul is saying exactly the oposite of what you say he says.

specsaregood

04-10-2009, 10:17 AM

But anyway, getting back on topic, why not vote for Tancredo?

Sure if illegal immigration is your only issue then voting for Tancredo would be the logical choice. If on the otherhand you want to take other issues into account, he pales in comparison to RP.

cheapseats

04-10-2009, 10:35 AM

Clear as mud.

From reading this thread, not only am I unclear as to Ron Paul's stance on immigration and nationalism, I am unmotivated to seek clarification. To my way of thinking, anyone who's been in Congress for THREE DECADES is part of the problem.

Yeah yeah, I know I know, people are only just now starting to HEAR him. That means his voice doesn't carry. His presence isn't a Presence. I know that's not a popular sentiment, but that's where I stand. Whether a person disagrees with me on some things or on everything, or whether they "merely" can't stand the WAY I say what I say, I AM forthright and steadfast. Now that y'all have had a taste of CHRONIC LYING, you know HAVE to know that counts for something. Dealing with Liars is like chasing mercury.

It's crunch time, People.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Instead of arguing over what we think another thinks, how 'bout everyone declares where they stand.

Me, I say Abortion is off the table. Me, I've read the Bible cover-to-cover twice, the second time with footnotes -- yeah yeah, I know I know, which version...I rest my case -- and that good book says that we are ACCOUNTABLE for every human life. Women/couples who have abortions will meet the Maker, same as everyone else. Each of us will one day own their own decisions before God.

Who can set this hot-button issue aside, PUT IT OUT OF YOUR MINDS THE SAME WAY YOU PUT FIVE OR SO THOUSAND AMERICAN AND UNCOUNTED IRAQI AND AFGHANI DEAD OUT OF YOUR MINDS. Election after election, you see some of the SLIMIEST people on earth troop this tear-jerker out and PROMPTLY, like Pavlov's dogs, we disintegrate into Hatfields and McCoys.

Abortion has NO BUSINESS BUT BUSINESS in the public arena. HAVING a position on Abortion, other than IT'S BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE UNIVERSE, is antithetical to Libertarianism and Republicanism alike. Morality CANNOT be legislated.

It would be wonderful if the people who are so bent out of shape about Abortion (which, like mayhem in the Middle East, has been occurring SINCE THE DAWN OF MAN) that they would tear this country asunder over it would, instead, charter airbuses to the Middle East and act as human shields for pregnant Iraqi and Afghani women. It couldn't NOT have a blessedly mitigating impact on regional violence.

Who wants open borders and who wants national sovereignty? They are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED. Where do People stand? Who are MY people? Free movement of labor = No national sovereignty. It's a one-or-the-other proposition.

I stand with national sovereignty, if we're standing. If y'all are kneeling, if there will no America as an identifiable compilation of principles and attributes, then I'm gonna high-tail it and burrow into the safest, most interesting deal I can forge for myself.

We'll get 'em in oh-ten, we'll get 'em in 2012. If Rand Paul can't do it, maybe Ron Paul's GRANDSON can git 'er done. Fiddle de dee. Put up or shut up, sayeth I.

Seize the moment.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Gamble big, win big.

He who hesitates is lost.

The early bird catches the worm.

Today is the first day of the rest of your life.

Just say NO.

Go for it.

Yeah yeah, I know I know, there are just as many platitudes, cliches and proverbs that speak to patience and kindliness. But I defy anyone to present Peaceable Means that have not already been conscientiously employed and casually-but-forcibly rejected.

Minuteman2008

04-10-2009, 10:35 AM

That's only true if you have a purely democratic system, which inevitably devolves into two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. We believe in a constitutionally limited government. The welfare state is prohibited by the Constituion.

Besides, I don't compromise my principles in favor of what is politically expedient.

But anyway, getting back on topic, why not vote for Tancredo?

You can believe in anything you want, but that won't stop the negative consequences of massive third world immigration. But hey, all this is theoretical, so why should we make decisions based on what happens here in the real world?

Tancredo? Most people didn't get a chance to vote for him since he pulled out so early to help stump for Romney. ;)

Also, despite a lot of libertarians' attempts to remake Paul's stance on immigration into something resembling their own open borders insanity, he's written several articles on the subject that are sensible and firmly grounded in reality.

But really, why try to weed out the realist conservatives from the libertarians? This whole movement is small enough as it is. If you got rid of all the folks who considered Paul's immigration views at least somewhat important, you'd have a pretty tiny group of people. Ron Paul was a member of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus and for the most part has been sensible on that subject (to conservatives). Just accept it and move on, I guess.

Feenix566

04-10-2009, 10:37 AM

Hey, nice try. A bit over the top, but nice try. You did not answer to the videos where Ron Paul is saying exactly the oposite of what you say he says.

I can't access youtube from work. But please remind me, what did I say Ron Paul's position on immigration is?

Standing Like A Rock

04-10-2009, 10:38 AM

Feenix566

04-10-2009, 10:49 AM

But really, why try to weed out the realist conservatives from the libertarians?

I'm not trying to weed anyone out, just trying to understand you. Priority number one is to get rid of the welfare / warfare state. It's a parasitic cancer on our society. Anyone who agrees that it's time to return to an economy based on earnings, not handouts, has more in common with me than different.

The question was really just a curiosity, that's all.

Minuteman2008

04-10-2009, 11:02 AM

I'm not trying to weed anyone out, just trying to understand you. Priority number one is to get rid of the welfare / warfare state. It's a parasitic cancer on our society. Anyone who agrees that it's time to return to an economy based on earnings, not handouts, has more in common with me than different.

The question was really just a curiosity, that's all.

If that is your priority, then I hope you see that all is lost when the government deliberately seeks to radically alter the demographics of the nation by either ignoring or encouraging illegal immigration (and proposing amnesty which will attract even more people who will be reliant on the government.) There is absolutely no hope of getting rid of the welfare state if things continue as they are.

Would getting rid of the welfare state discourage illegal immigration? Of course, but how on earth are you going to get there when the very people who are causing our population to increase lean politically to the left?

Feenix566

04-10-2009, 11:23 AM

If that is your priority, then I hope you see that all is lost when the government deliberately seeks to radically alter the demographics of the nation by either ignoring or encouraging illegal immigration (and proposing amnesty which will attract even more people who will be reliant on the government.) There is absolutely no hope of getting rid of the welfare state if things continue as they are.

Would getting rid of the welfare state discourage illegal immigration? Of course, but how on earth are you going to get there when the very people who are causing our population to increase lean politically to the left?

I do realize that.

On the other hand, I hope you realize that building a fence is logistically impossible. The border fences that have already been built are ineffective. Immigrants cut holes through it all the time, or just go around it.

I hope you also realize that there are already 10 million people here illegally. If you tried to deport all of them, they're not going to go willingly. The only way to accomplish that would be through force. Not only would such an endeavor destroy our country, but it would also probably result in a bloodbath, and that's very incongruous with the cause of liberty.

So you're left with a decision between having 10 million people here subverting the law or obeying it.

If we grant the voting rights, yes they'll probably vote for more socialism. But that's not because they're bad people. It's because the real conservatives and capitalists in this country have, up until now, done a terrible job of educating people about the virtues of our philosophy. The only way we're ever going to get rid of the welfare state is through education. All other paths lead to failure.

cheapseats

04-10-2009, 11:38 AM

I do realize that.

On the other hand, I hope you realize that building a fence is logistically impossible. The border fences that have already been built are ineffective. Immigrants cut holes through it all the time, or just go around it.

I hope you also realize that there are already 10 million people here illegally. If you tried to deport all of them, they're not going to go willingly. The only way to accomplish that would be through force. Not only would such an endeavor destroy our country, but it would also probably result in a bloodbath, and that's very incongruous with the cause of liberty.

So you're left with a decision between having 10 million people here subverting the law or obeying it.

If we grant the voting rights, yes they'll probably vote for more socialism. But that's not because they're bad people. It's because the real conservatives and capitalists in this country have, up until now, done a terrible job of educating people about the virtues of our philosophy. The only way we're ever going to get rid of the welfare state is through education. All other paths lead to failure.

I will argue that Amnesty For Illegals is another Bailout.

We ALREADY did that. Just like we ALREADY bailed out Detroit. We are like ineffectual parents, always threatening that 'this is the LAST time, I MEAN it.' The kids are onto us, and they are playing us like a big brass band.

Grandfather them in as ILLEGALS. REDUCE benefits (me, I WANT them educated in English-speaking, American-history-teaching taxpayer funded excellent public schools.)

Audit the effing lotteries -- there is beaucoup graft going on THERE, obviously.

If Illegals pop onto police radar, they pop onto Immigration radar and they're OUT. High motivation for young 'uns not to become chollos.

RedStripe

04-10-2009, 11:51 AM

I strongly supported Ron Paul and I advocate totally open borders (ideally). That probably has something to do with the fact that I believe in abolishing government entirely.

This issue is like a lot of other libertarian conundrums: if we don't have simultaneous reform on several fronts at once, there well be negative social consequences.

Then again, there's always the argument that illegal immigration, like bailouts and stimulus will ultimately cause our unconstitutional, tyrannical, and unsustainable system of government to collapse - a greater reduction in the size of government than the political methods of libertarian reform could ever bring about alone.

dgr

04-10-2009, 12:44 PM

I was a supporter of Trancredo, passed out materials and bumper stickers. But in the begining
he could not get a word in as the debate people kept giving Rudy too much time.
Paul and Trancredo got potraied as extremest. Illegal immigration is one of the biggest drains on the economy, Not to mention that it has and will drastically change America, if legallized there will never be another party elected but democrats, and 12-20 more non citizens will be added to the welfare roles, wages will be supressed and even more US worker will be displaced from the meat packing , construction and many other jobs. They have the highest drop out rate and the higest out of wed lock and tenage birth rate. They are the largest cost of health and education spending, Tearcher are being laid off in every state by federal amndate English Language Learner programs are protected. YOU bet its the main issue for me because it is directly related to every other issue. Both parties want it and it will be the beginning of the end of the USA. If we can not stop this we can not stop anything

Jace

04-10-2009, 11:02 PM

...

Danke

04-10-2009, 11:17 PM

If you think open borders and mass immigration are what liberty is all about, then you shouldn't be here on a Ron Paul message board. You should be hanging out with the Obama people, or the McCain people.

+1

Lord Xar

04-11-2009, 01:47 AM

We control the borders of Kosovo and Iraq on the other side of the world. We can control our own border. It's not as hard as some would have us believe.
It's not the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. If we put in half the effort on our border that we do on that one, we would shut down 99 percent of the illegal immigration into this country.

We built a fence across the border of North and South Korea and stopped all movement of people for 50 years between what for 1,000 years was one nation. Building a fence on our own border is not logistically impossible. In fact, the fence across the California/Mexico border was highly effective and forced illegal immigration eastward to Arizona. In Arizona, they are doing a pretty good job of cracking down on illegals coming across. It's just a matter of not letting the politics of La Raza, the ACLU and liberal newspapers get in the way of the will of the voters and the enforcement of the law.

Arizona is much better at workplace enforcement than California. That's why it's so much harder on the middle class in California than in Arizona and why California is losing its middle class and is devolving into a society of an ultra rich class exploiting a dysfunctional ultra poor class, with the middle being squeezed out and fleeing for places like Arizona.

We can easily send back 10 million illegal immigrants. I could do it tomorrow if I were calling the shots. Eliminate all welfare for illegals, and impose a $1,000 per day fine on employers for each illegal worker, with $500 awarded to the person who reports any employer exploiting illegal labor. Also, immediately deport any person arrested for a DUI who is here illegally and you'd probably get rid of a million in a few months and save tens of thousands of American lives a year and millions upon millions in taxpayer money.

If you value our Constitution, then please remember the culture that gave birth to it. We need to protect that culture and our traditions if we want our Constitution to survive. If you think those traditions will survive when immigrants from the Third World outnumber people raised here with those traditions, then come hang out in California where American traditions are being overwhelmed under a flood of Latin Americans, Chinese and Indian immigrants who think America is a cash cow not to be milked, but to be slaughtered and its bones picked clean.

Spend a little time south of the border if you want to see our future if the current rate of immigration remains unchanged.

In California, George Washington is seen less as a founder of this nation, and more as a slave-owning warmonger. Edison was just another greedy, exploitive capitalist white man.

Cesar Chavez and Malcolm X are the heroes for the new America. Or is it Aztlan now? Community organizer is the new profession of choice. Prosperity is earned not by the sweat of your brow and the cleverness of your mind, but by marching and waving the flag of your home country and demanding your rights and what you deserve. All those white people in the big houses owe you for what their ancestors allegedly did to your ancestors, and righteous community organizing is the way to get that bling bling into your bank account. That, or selling dope, or robbing 7-Elevens, because gangsta ain't no different than banksta.

A wealthy member of the upper caste in India who was raised by servants has the same rights as you because he has an H1B visa, and he will work for half your wage. There are 300 million people just like him rushing to get on the plane and into your cubicle. And if you complain that he is undercutting your wages and you can no longer afford to raise your family, you need to shut up because you are a fat, lazy American. It's a flat world now, you racist.

But it is still illegal for you to buy land in Mexico. If you want to work in India, you better follow their cultural norms and their rules that protect their workers, or will be deported faster than a bad bowl of curry through your bowels.

Americans used to stand up and fight invaders. They used to be proud of their traditions, prosperity and freedoms and were willing to lay down their lives to protect them and protect the well being of their families.

But now we're becoming just another sweatshop for international bankers. Those bankers have brainwashed most people in this nation into believing that freedom means leaving your door open so foreigners can come in and clean out your home, and then they'll insult you for being an isolationist or a protectionist if you complain about not liking it.

If you think open borders and mass immigration are what liberty is all about, then you shouldn't be here on a Ron Paul message board. You should be hanging out with the Obama people, or the McCain people. The philosophies of Tom Friedman and Larry Summers should be right up your alley. The North American Union and the NWO should put a smile on your face. Maybe the NWO is what liberty means to you.

But that's not how I see it.

holy shit. that is exactly, exactly how i feel. thank you very much.

Minuteman2008

04-11-2009, 08:24 AM

Jace, that post is fantastic. You've reduced the George Soros fanboy's arguments to ashes.

Meatwasp

04-11-2009, 08:51 AM

qh4dotcom

04-11-2009, 09:29 AM

No one said he was against legal immigration. Emphasis on LEGAL.

What is his position on US embassies and the bad reputation they have for denying visas to the millions of people who apply for them?

Making LEGAL immigration difficult and a pain in the *** is what causes ILLEGAL immigration.

LibertyEagle

04-11-2009, 09:54 AM

What is his position on US embassies and the bad reputation they have for denying visas to the millions of people who apply for them?
I want a Lotus (http://www.lotuscars.com/elise.html). So, if I don't get what I want, is it ok for me to go out and steal one?

Making LEGAL immigration difficult and a pain in the *** is what causes ILLEGAL immigration.
He's talked about the huge lag once the process has begun and he has indicated that he believes it to be abhorrent.

cheapseats

04-11-2009, 10:07 AM

I propose a MORATORIUM ON IMMIGRATION until this man-made crisis has been resolved -- whether by man, market or God.

Those who are not criminals in Washington are buffoons. EVERY DAY, people who don't know what they're doing and people who are up to no good, are MANIPULATING conditions and circumstances. Within the authentic big-picture paradigm of Continuous Change, we have chronic tinkering AND shifting numbers. We are RIDICULOUS.

OF COURSE we can seal our own borders. We are IN a State of Emergency -- in fact, have we ever had a national dialogue on the political correctness of the COLOR CODING OF OUR THREAT LEVELS?

Americans love Reality TV? Fine. Public hangings of traitors. Sell tickets. Pay-per-view. I could have this country in the black lickety split. Is is okay to refer to "in the black" and "in the red"? Or does that unfairly advantage Blacks at the expense of Communists? Is there a lawyer in the house?

OF COURSE there is. There is ALWAYS a lawyer in the house.

BIG LAW. BIG INSURANCE.

Take a look-see at how often THEY feature in a problem. Neither one of 'em produce a fuckin' thing. Same with financiers.

"GET UP OFF YOUR KNEES AND TAKE BACK WHAT IS YOURS."

RevolutionSD

04-11-2009, 10:41 AM

Huh? You say you disagree with his stance, here, so you must understand that he is not pro open borders (he believes a nation without borders is no nation at all) and he is not pro-abortion. So, please explain why it is that you think the OP asked good questions? :confused:

Ok, now you're telling us what you believe. By the way, it seems clear at least to me, that RP blames the government for the problem, but, he also is a realist that we cannot allow our country to continue to be wholesale invaded by illegal aliens. This is in keeping with Thomas Jefferson's view also; as he wrote about the dangers of doing so.

1. A "Nation State" is a fictional concept, just like borders themselves.
2. You contradicted yourself in the second paragraph. If the government is the problem, then how in the world are we being "invaded by illegal aliens"? There is no legal/illegal status, these are just humans trying to make a better life for themselves. It does you zero harm to let them in if we take out the root problem here, and that is the welfare/warfare state. "Protecting the border" is at best a band aid, and a week one at that. And bringing up TJ doesn't say anything to your point.

qh4dotcom

04-11-2009, 10:55 AM

I want a Lotus (http://www.lotuscars.com/elise.html). So, if I don't get what I want, is it ok for me to go out and steal one?

He's talked about the huge lag once the process has begun and he has indicated that he believes it to be abhorrent.

Immigration is not something luxurious...for poor Mexicans who are starving it can be a necessity...it's either stay in Mexico and die of hunger or emigrate to the US...and immigration is not something tangible that can be stolen.

LibertyEagle

04-11-2009, 10:55 AM

RevolutionSD,

The only way I can figure out how you arrived at your conclusion is if you don't believe in national sovereignty. And that appears to be the case.

:(

LibertyEagle

04-11-2009, 10:57 AM

Immigration is not something luxurious...for poor Mexicans who are starving it can be a necessity...it's either stay in Mexico and die of hunger or emigrate to the US...and immigration is not something tangible that can be stolen.

Feel free to empty out your bank account and send it to them. Or even move there yourself.

Our country was founded as a nation of laws.

qh4dotcom

04-11-2009, 11:01 AM

Feel free to empty out your bank account and send it to them. Or even move there yourself.

Our country was founded as a nation of laws.

No need for me to do that...and what laws are being broken if applying for a visa/legal immigration stops being a pain in the ***?

Brian4Liberty

04-11-2009, 11:11 AM

But anyway, getting back on topic, why not vote for Tancredo?

Tancredo was pro-war.

LibertyEagle

04-11-2009, 11:14 AM

I think the process is messed up too. It takes too long to complete; whatever the outcome is.

But, just because someone WANTS to immigrate here, doesn't mean that the answer should always be yes.

Brian4Liberty

04-11-2009, 11:25 AM

Here's a Q&A with Ron Paul on immigration.

Emphasis added. Keep in mind that this interview was done before our economic meltdown, so his points on whether the US economy can handle immigration are more relevant.

Q - Please start by summarizing your position on immigration.

Well, I start off with saying that it’s a big problem. I don’t like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, but I do think it is a federal responsibility to protect our borders. This mess has come about for various reasons. One, the laws aren’t enforced. Another, the welfare state. We have a need for workers in this country because our welfare system literally encourages people not to work. Therefore, a lot of jobs go begging. This is an incentive for immigrants to come in and take those jobs.

It is compounded because of federal mandates on the states to provide free medical care—that’s literally bankrupting the hospitals in Texas—and free education.

So my main point is to get rid of incentives that cause people to break the law—entitlements as well as the promise of amnesty, citizenship.

I also want to revisit the whole idea of birthright citizenship. I don’t think many countries have that. I don’t think it was the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment. I personally think it could be fixed by legislation. But some people argue otherwise, so I’ve covered myself by introducing a constitutional amendment.

Q - How would legislation work?

It would define citizenship. Individuals that just stepped over the border illegally would not be technically “under the jurisdiction of the United States”. [i.e. not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the words of the Fourteenth Amendment] That’s illegal entry, so they don’t deserve this privilege.

Q - What is your view on legal immigration?

I think it depends on our economy. If we have a healthy economy, I think we could be very generous on work programs. People come in, fulfill their role and go back home.

I’m not worried about legal immigration. I think we would even have more if we had a healthy economy.

But in the meantime, we want to stop the illegals. And that’s why I don’t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we’ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq.

Q- Is the economy healthy enough right now?

No. I don’t think so. I think the economy is going downhill. People are feeling pinched—in the middle, much more pinched than the government is willing to admit. Their standard of living is going down. I saw a clip on TV the other day about somebody who was about to lose their house, they couldn’t pay their mortgage. There’re millions of people involved, people are very uncertain about this housing market. That can’t be separated from concern about illegals.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/070912_paul.htm

Brian4Liberty

04-11-2009, 11:47 AM

So-called "legal" immigration. A seminar on how to disqualify American workers:

"our goal is clearly not to find a qualified and interested US worker."

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/programmersguild

Jace

04-11-2009, 12:48 PM

...

RevolutionSD

04-11-2009, 12:51 PM

RevolutionSD,

The only way I can figure out how you arrived at your conclusion is if you don't believe in national sovereignty. And that appears to be the case.

:(

I don't believe in borders and nation states and governments. They are all fictional concepts, not real things.

Having just a little tyranny is like being a little pregnant. We can't allow just a little bit of violence to structure society, because it always leads to more and more until we have what we have today. Those who want to trade liberty for security will get neither.

I used to be a small government guy like you but reading Complete Liberty by Wes Bertrand www.completeliberty.com, and listening to some podcasts and audio books over at www.freedomainradio.com left me with no more arguments on the need for a state.

Pennsylvania

04-11-2009, 12:52 PM

listening to some podcasts and audio books over at www.freedomainradio.com left me with no more arguments on the need for a state.

qft

Jace

04-11-2009, 12:58 PM

...

Minuteman2008

04-11-2009, 03:35 PM

It's not a God-given right for everyone on the planet to immigrate to this country. The problem is NOT that the immigration process takes too long or the numbers are too low, especially since we take in more immigrants than any other nation and immigration is at an all time historic high. No, the problem is that we reward mediocrity with handouts. In earlier waves of immigration, nearly half of all new arrivals returned to their home countries since there was no welfare state to protect them. Obviously that is not the case anymore.

But again, the biggest misconception is that we just don't allow enough immigration to meet demand. If we only increased the numbers everyone would be satisfied. But that's an absurdity on a planet that adds 80 million to its population every year, and the majority of that 80 million is born in the third world. You cannot possibly allow enough immigration to meet demand without becoming another Bangledesh in a short time. But we wouldn't want reality to get in the way of ideology.

AggieforPaul

04-11-2009, 04:39 PM

Because we're sure that Ron Paul means it. Tom Tancredo means it too. Everyone else may or may not be serious about securing the borders. But if Ron Paul says he wants to secure the borders, then he wants to secure the borders. He has no history of doublespeak or insincerity.

I guess if you're a single issue voter then Tancredo might be a better choice, but there's no way that immigration could matter so much to me that I'd quit caring about the Fed, the America empire, the national debt, etc.

RonPaulR3VOLUTION

04-11-2009, 06:00 PM

Immigration Gumballs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

werdd

04-11-2009, 08:15 PM

Because Ron Paul is about eliminating the incentives to come here. That is the true solution to illegal immigration. If they weren't collecting freebies all the time, then they would be welcome as cheap labor.

Danke

04-11-2009, 09:40 PM

I don't believe in borders and nation states and governments. They are all fictional concepts, not real things.

Then why are you posting on a political forum?

Should we stop our campaigning & donating?

Are you a fiction created in my mind? I don't know, maybe if I shoot you with my fictitious gun, you won't bleed. And if you do bleed, it is just another fiction in my mind, which is a fiction too.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, I think. Strawman, etc. Fictional characters do exist. But they also do have guns that hurt us in their frictional world that they have created.

So for now, I guess I will try my best to beat them at their own game and prevent those that try to use the current rules against my well being.

RevolutionSD

04-12-2009, 09:51 AM

Then why are you posting on a political forum?

Should we stop our campaigning & donating?

Are you a fiction created in my mind? I don't know, maybe if I shoot you with my fictitious gun, you won't bleed. And if you do bleed, it is just another fiction in my mind, which is a fiction too.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, I think. Strawman, etc. Fictional characters do exist. But they also do have guns that hurt us in their frictional world that they have created.

So for now, I guess I will try my best to beat them at their own game and prevent those that try to use the current rules against my well being.

Well, it sounds like you're being facetious, but I will respond anyway.
Im posting here because many people here get it, and many are very close to getting in. The very idea of government is why we are in the place we are in now. Government is force & violence. Everything they do would be impossible without the threat of violence. We will not be able to reform an inherently evil organization.

So, I don't think you're getting my statement about borders, nations, and governments being fictional.

A "nation" doesn't exist in reality. You do exist. I do exist. A tree exists. But someone came up with the idea of "nations" as plots of land run by a small group of elites who monopolize the use of violence.

Borders also do not exist in reality. Mountains exist, rocks exist, but borders are a made-up concept.

We are not slaves, we are individuals. We do not need authoritarian sociopaths running our lives.

And to answer your question, the only point I see in campaigning and donating is getting airtime on the msm. But I question if that alone is worth all the time and money. It's definitely not worth it at the state, congressional, or senate level. We are just encouraging the bastards and sanctioning a system of violence when we participate in the process.

If this still isn't making sense, check out the Philosophy of Liberty video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Cheers and Happy Sunday!

apropos

04-12-2009, 11:11 AM

But someone came up with the idea of "nations" as plots of land run by a small group of elites who monopolize the use of violence.

I read this and was struck by how closely this resembles Marx's theories on exploitation of the working classes.

Calling a nation a "fictional" entity is just plain wrong...at the very best it shows poor word choice. Now, a nation could be a "abstract" entity as opposed to a fictional one, which is a world of difference. Fact: America exists in reality today. Fiat money, tax codes, prisons, armies, the second amendment, governing bodies, and countless other examples are expressions of the nation of America. It just isn't a serious argument to call America a fictional entity when it affects all our lives directly every day.

And before deciding we should be dealing only with "reality" instead of abstract entities, we should consider that many abstract things are crucial to your beliefs in anarchy. The concept of private property and individual ownership, for example.

RevolutionSD

04-12-2009, 12:58 PM

I read this and was struck by how closely this resembles Marx's theories on exploitation of the working classes.

Calling a nation a "fictional" entity is just plain wrong...at the very best it shows poor word choice. Now, a nation could be a "abstract" entity as opposed to a fictional one, which is a world of difference. Fact: America exists in reality today. Fiat money, tax codes, prisons, armies, the second amendment, governing bodies, and countless other examples are expressions of the nation of America. It just isn't a serious argument to call America a fictional entity when it affects all our lives directly every day.

And before deciding we should be dealing only with "reality" instead of abstract entities, we should consider that many abstract things are crucial to your beliefs in anarchy. The concept of private property and individual ownership, for example.

No, nations are fictional. You can't point out a nation to me. You can point to land, you can point to a body of water, you can point to people within a geographic region, but there is no such thing as a nation, other than in the abstract.

Now, are we forced to live under all the things you have mentioned? Yes, we can't say it is fiction that we have to pay taxes or that the government steals money from us by printing it.

But the very concept of government making up a nation, is not a tangible thing- it is only through 100's of years of brainwashing and propaganda that we still believe in these things.