Ron Paul is Against Illegal Immigration; Do you still support him?

[FrankRep]

The Immigration Question (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html)


Ron Paul
April 4, 2006


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.


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



JBS Speakers Tour - Stealing the American Dream: How Illegal Immigration Affects You
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=237554


John McManus on the Illegal Immigration Invasion


John McManus, President of the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/), explains our current open borders policy and how continued unrestricted immigration threatens our nations future and independence.

Jack McManus on the Immigration Invasion (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8777665565344843988&hl=en#)

[John Taylor]

+1776.

[yongrel]

No.

[yongrel]

Also, I would hope for your sake that your beliefs are based on something more stable than the caprices of a politician (however adorable that politician may be).

Ron Paul's word is not infallible, and he is not able to redefine "liberty" to accommodate the various political necessities imposed by his district.

He can be wrong.

[John Taylor]

No.

No surprise here, a liberaltarian beltway-boy who wants 3 billion immigrants to move in and vote all his stuff to themselves. Yay!!!!

[Daamien]

I don't think anyone is technically "for" illegal immigration. Rather, they are for more legal immigration and a pathway for existing illegal aliens to achieve legal status (which is intentionally vague). Yes, it's semantics. As Ron Paul demonstrates, you can be against illegal immigration yet opposed to the Arizona law as a violation of civil liberties, due process, equality under the law, and an expansion of government.

[FrankRep]

The Libertarian Party made an interesting comment about Illegal Immigration:


I think that if there’s a problem with massive illegal immigration, then one of the best solutions is to make legal immigration easier.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/libertarian-party-monday-message-dont-blame-immigrants/


I agree with the LP that immigration laws need to be Easier rather than a free for all Open Borders like some here have proposed.

[Don't Tread on Mike]

just make it a more efficient process and stop milking out our tax payers dollars. the more americans able to pay taxes and ease the tax burden off ourselves the better. The illegals are the smart ones, they stay and dont get fined for being free.

[bchavez]

so, would Ron Paul revoke my citizenship?

I was born here with birthright citizenship. My dad is not a citizen, but my mom is.

My dad pays taxes just like everyone else and has his own SSCard.

I started a private c-class corporation, been in business for a few years now. No debt, no loans, Austrian style.... and probably pay more taxes than your average person combined....

[Lord Xar]

I'd say about 1/3 of the posters here are NOT Ron Paul supporters but just shills looking to recruit into their big 'gubbment' propaganda notions.

If anyone truly believes that these "pure libertarians" support Ron Paul, you are sorely mistaken. Most are here to do one thing -They are only here to sway minds and co-opt things.

[yongrel]

I'd say about 1/3 of the posters here are NOT Ron Paul supporters but just shills looking to recruit into their big 'gubbment' propaganda notions.

If anyone truly believes that these "pure libertarians" support Ron Paul, you are sorely mistaken. Most are here to do one thing -They are only here to sway minds and co-opt things.

As a libertarian, I would love for some of the less liberty-friendly members of this forum to "see the light." Liberty seems to be misunderstood by many here.

And what's wrong with swaying minds? Liberty is supreme in its importance, and I am sorry that you remain unconvinced. I'll try harder next time to persuade you of the value of the individual and self-ownership.

If you insist on continuing to be an inconsistent and intellectually hollow advocate of liberty, so be it.

[BuddyRey]

Do we really need another thread on this?! :(

My answer is yes, even though RP and I disagree over immigration, he's still the man, and I can't even express my despair at seeing how easily the freedom movement is jumping for the bait and dividing itself over a petty wedge issue which boils down to semantics more than anything, since almost all of us agree there is a problem but simply differ on our interpretations of who bears the ultimate blame for the situation.

[silentshout]

I'm not for amnesty, but this law is horrible. I don't care who agrees with it (or not), I've formed my own opinions.

[Lord Xar]

As a libertarian, I would love for some of the less liberty-friendly members of this forum to "see the light." Liberty seems to be misunderstood by many here.

And what's wrong with swaying minds? Liberty is supreme in its importance, and I am sorry that you remain unconvinced. I'll try harder next time to persuade you of the value of the individual and self-ownership.

If you insist on continuing to be an inconsistent and intellectually hollow advocate of liberty, so be it.

That is far stretch more than I can say of you. Why don't you leave this place and go try to recruit some liberals to your cause. They seem more your vein. Perhaps Kos will be to your liking.

I am sure if Ron Paul runs in 2012, you will be arm-chairing it then too.
You are a mouthpiece, nothing more.

[Mini-Me]

I'd say about 1/3 of the posters here are NOT Ron Paul supporters but just shills looking to recruit into their big 'gubbment' propaganda notions.

If anyone truly believes that these "pure libertarians" support Ron Paul, you are sorely mistaken. Most are here to do one thing -They are only here to sway minds and co-opt things.


That is far stretch more than I can say of you. Why don't you leave this place and go try to recruit some liberals to your cause. They seem more your vein. Perhaps Kos will be to your liking.

I am sure if Ron Paul runs in 2012, you will be arm-chairing it then too.
You are a mouthpiece, nothing more.

Could you possibly post in a more hostile and accusatory tone? I'm really wanting to see you go all out. :rolleyes:

[peacepotpaul]

Also, I would hope for your sake that your beliefs are based on something more stable than the caprices of a politician (however adorable that politician may be).

Ron Paul's word is not infallible, and he is not able to redefine "liberty" to accommodate the various political necessities imposed by his district.

He can be wrong.

this guy would agree with you

skip to 1:40

YouTube - What is Liberty? Pt1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECZ3Al5GwYo)
(feel free to watch the whole thing)

[axiomata]

so, would Ron Paul revoke my citizenship?

I was born here with birthright citizenship. My dad is not a citizen, but my mom is.

My dad pays taxes just like everyone else and has his own SSCard.

I started a private c-class corporation, been in business for a few years now. No debt, no loans, Austrian style.... and probably pay more taxes than your average person combined....

That would require an ex post facto law, something I am quite sure Ron Paul and other sensible people would oppose.

That said, the modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment is flawed, it is not what the ratifiers intended. They just wanted to make sure former slaves born in the US were citizens, and at the time the US has no immigration policy.

Correct interpretation or amending would reduce the incentive for illegal immigration, but it would not retroactively affect people in your situation of course (and thank goodness).

[Promontorium]

If you accept that a nation exists among other nations, if you further accept that each nation has its own laws, then the open border system can not.

Promoting the destruction of America is not Libertarian. And I do contend, that a completely open system would destroy this nation.

You look to an ideal, and then demand a reality to fit your ideal. It simply won't work. America is not a libertarian nation. Its laws, its power over enterprise and trade preclude the possibility of an open system working.

I too believe that the most rational thing for humanity is global unity. However this doesn't exist yet. So trying to implement affect before cause will fail.

If you think infrastructure is limitless, if you think a flood of immigration, can do no harm. Then you are unaware of our species' history.

I welcome all humans to unite. But if all humans came to America, the government would collapse on itself instantaneously. Obviously that's an extreme. But how many people have to move into a city before there aren't enough houses? How many people have to move in while new houses are being built, before enough new houses can't be constructed?

But of course, house builders will come, in the mean time there is a greater demand for every other resource, and certainly, presumably there are trained educated and intelligent people able to step up and build, grow, supply the emerging nation.

But if such a thing is possible, and not in the realm of fantasy, then it has a speed limit.

You seem unwilling to acquiesce this fact. Unwilling to consider that however technologically advanced we are, we are still bound by the earth for our existence.

But all this, I say, without regard to human comfort. Without regard to safety, security, or even representation. I am speaking of a free for all, like in the old days. A land grab. An emotionless overview.

Oklahoma famously had a land grab. The land was overworked. For there was no limitation or foresight. 1893. By 1930 Oklahoma had been effectively ecologically destroyed. Thousands died in agony. Families were destroyed. The very earth rose above man and consumed him.


Your ideas are not Libertarian. They are foolish. Anarchy is unworkable. And yet you promote anarchy in the very heart of the nature of government.

If a nation has no borders. Then it is not a nation. Its laws mean nothing. And that is anarchy. I do not believe anarchy can lead to anything but a reorganization of laws.

Humans naturally come together. We are a social species. Humans naturally desire safety and security. And advances afford people to rely on third party support. The rational desire to be secure without having to interrogate and detain on your own, every person who crosses you. The rational desire to have agreed upon standards for interaction that will benefit all who participate. This is the foundation of law. To rip this beneath the feet of people, is to deny them that which all social interaction hinges on, in this social structure we have developed. It is advantageous, and rational.

So, I argue, that as long as nations exist, with separate laws, and America exists as such, with the social structure that relies on the advantageous ability to have laws and law enforcement, a completely open border is implicitly destructive.

If you do not believe what I have written, I challenge you to ascend beyond your opinion, and state why. If however you do believe it is advantageous to change America as we know it, that is your opinion, and it will be understood.

I do not believe that there is any rational argument that can position America as having entirely open borders, and continue to function as it does now. And I would look forward to such an argument if it can be presented.

[bobbyw24]

Thanks for reminding us that this is RON PAUL forums.

[Rylick]

The Libertarian Party made an interesting comment about Illegal Immigration:


I think that if there’s a problem with massive illegal immigration, then one of the best solutions is to make legal immigration easier.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/libertarian-party-monday-message-dont-blame-immigrants/


I agree with the LP that immigration laws need to be Easier rather than a free for all Open Borders like some here have proposed.
And that's exactly my point of view. There is no benefit to the united states because of illegal immigration. People don't contribute to society. They don't pay taxes. They are not able to to acquire knowledge to contribute more so society.
But for god's sake, if somebody wants to life and work in the united states, why shouldn't it be possible to do like everybody else ?! People don't choose where they are born but if they are grown up they should be able to decide on their own how they want so live.

[fj45lvr]

Ron is da man. I can hardly think of a single thing I don't agree with him on.


We should want to institute whatever governance we see fit and consent to for our own security and happiness.

this "we are the world" mumbo jumbo is ridiculous. Hopefully 50 sovereign states can decide their own law in this regard. and if their is going to be a federal "union" they can make it a priority to make sure that not just as many who want to run across the border are welcome to come.

[BillyDkid]

Why would anyone support ILLEGAL immigration? I personally believe in open borders, but I don't believe that anyone who walks in is entitled to citizenship. There are steps to becoming an American and that should be open to anyone who wants to become an American. The real issue is the rule of law and whether or not we should simply disregard the law because many, many people are ignoring it. If the law is flawed, change it.

[bobbyw24]

Why would anyone support ILLEGAL immigration

Republicans support illegal immigration since it gives them cheap labor for their businesses

Democrats support it since the immigrants will become citizens and vote Democrat 2-to-1 and make sure the GOP never wins another presidential election.

[LibertyEagle]

Excerpts from:
Founding Fathers Were Immigration Skeptics
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21626


Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.


In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind --ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

[DAFTEK]

YES I SUPPORT HIM 1776%!!! This is why i love this man! RON PAUL R3VOLUTION 2012! :D

[leonster]

Man, I come in here and I see the top 5-10 posts are ALL about immigration and Arizona. Freaking give it a rest!

I have my own (fairly strong) opinion about it too (which I'll decline to state because I don't want to get dragged into this), but I don't think anyone here is going to have their mind changed on this issue by tearing each other apart on it!

A thread or two, fine, any topic's open for discussion. But spewing crap (from both sides) all over the forum and burying any other topics is nonsense. So are the personal attacks.

[rprprs]

Do we really need another thread on this?! :(

^This.

It's the same talking points over and over again, and no one is being swayed by those of the opposing side.

It's an important issue yes, but if you if you feel you can somehow contribute to the the discussion, can you not add those thoughts to an existing thread.

This issue is akin to the country's Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate, or the RPF debate on Glen Beck. The lines have been drawn, and adding yet another thread on the subject is not going to achieve a consensus.

[Stary Hickory]

I'd say about 1/3 of the posters here are NOT Ron Paul supporters but just shills looking to recruit into their big 'gubbment' propaganda notions.

If anyone truly believes that these "pure libertarians" support Ron Paul, you are sorely mistaken. Most are here to do one thing -They are only here to sway minds and co-opt things.

This is sometimes what I think, supporting open borders with our exisiting govermental system( or corrupted form thereof) is suicide for freedom. I wonder if people are actually this naive or really want to see more tyranny? I like most people would love to see every single individual move freely anywhere. But this can only be possible when these same people will not initiate violence against others, whether that be using weapons themselves or using government as a weapon.

We must defend ourselves and be careful who we leave ourselves vulnerable to when there are those that would use violence to exploit others.

[johnrocks]

More than ever, take away the "benefits" such as what RP has talked about many times and this would not even be a front burner issue.

[bobbyw24]

More than ever, take away the "benefits" such as what RP has talked about many times and this would not even be a front burner issue.

The GOP tried that in the 90s when Gingrich was in charge and nothing changed.

[johnrocks]

The GOP tried that in the 90s when Gingrich was in charge and nothing changed.

Oh, I don't think anything will change unless more like Ron Paul are elected.

[Stary Hickory]

More than ever, take away the "benefits" such as what RP has talked about many times and this would not even be a front burner issue.

Exactly, this must be done FIRST then we can lax immigration laws. Doing it the other way around will condemn us to a life of tyranny and misery. If you make it impossible to loot and rob others then those that come here will only come here to peacefully coexist and interact via voluntary associations.

This is beneficial. But when we leave in place the insitutions of violence that can be wielded by the populace for personal gain, it is the potential use of these institutions that motivate people to come here. These are people we DO NOT want to associate with especially as long as the possibilty of access to government force exists.

[orenbus]

so, would Ron Paul revoke my citizenship?

I was born here with birthright citizenship. My dad is not a citizen, but my mom is.

My dad pays taxes just like everyone else and has his own SSCard.

I started a private c-class corporation, been in business for a few years now. No debt, no loans, Austrian style.... and probably pay more taxes than your average person combined....

I asked Ron Paul this question in 2007 up in New Hampshire while canvassing for the campaign. His answer to me was no he would not be for revoking citizenship of those already born here. He expressed to me (although years later I'm still weighing this) the need to remove birthright citizenship as one of the incentives of illegal aliens to come here illegally. He mentioned to me that many times illegal aliens are used as scapegoats for the economic problems we have and that what is needed is immigration reform and tighter border security, but as far as birthright citizenship goes, it's removal is simply one of a number of approaches to combat the illegal immigration problem we have today.

[fj45lvr]

More than ever, take away the "benefits" such as what RP has talked about many times and this would not even be a front burner issue.


Luckily for us economic laws will do this without any "politics" involved:D


Maybe bailouts and increased unfunded liabilities are what we need more of.....help us move on much faster that way.

[angelatc]

so, would Ron Paul revoke my citizenship?

I was born here with birthright citizenship. My dad is not a citizen, but my mom is.

..

That's every bit as ridiculous as Whoopi telling America that she'd be a slave if we returned to Constitutional values.

Congrats.

[angelatc]

Luckily for us economic laws will do this without any "politics" involved:D


Maybe bailouts and increased unfunded liabilities are what we need more of.....help us move on much faster that way.

Great. So after they take all our money, all our land, all our weapons...maybe freedom will return. You honestly believe that?

I prefer Plan A, as in Arizona.

[TC95]

Yes, I still support Ron Paul, but then I've always been against illegal immigration even before I heard of Ron Paul.

[TC95]

For those who believe we should have open borders, should it just be us or should all nations have open borders? If so, why even have individual nations? I'm assuming you're for world government?

[sevin]

Also, I would hope for your sake that your beliefs are based on something more stable than the caprices of a politician (however adorable that politician may be).

Ron Paul's word is not infallible, and he is not able to redefine "liberty" to accommodate the various political necessities imposed by his district.

He can be wrong.

He certainly can be, and no one's beliefs should be based on the beliefs of some politician. But I'm happy to see that in this case Ron Paul has the same opinion as I do.

It's amazing how divisive this issue is. I suppose it's because a lot of libertarians are generally against any kind of new laws. But not all laws are bad.


Thanks for reminding us that this is RON PAUL forums.

:D

[UtahApocalypse]

Key word:

Illegal

he supports Immigration, as its a large part of our Nation. He would make the process more efficient.

[constituent]

They just wanted to make sure former slaves born in the US were citizens, and at the time the US has no immigration policy.


but wait a second, Promontorium said,



Promoting the destruction of America is not Libertarian. And I do contend, that a completely open system would destroy this nation.

So axiomata, how could it be that before the un-Civil War the US had "no immigration policy" if an "open system would destroy this nation?"

It seems to me that you're suggesting that there was no such thing as the United States before the civil war, and well sir, that's just absurd! ;) :D

[tmosley]

I am for policing the border, making legal immigration easier, removing quotas, and AGAINST having outback Nazi law enforcement agencies asking me for my fucking papers because I look vaguely ethnic.

There are ways to deal with illegal immigration that don't involve the utter destruction of American freedoms.

[loveshiscountry]

so, would Ron Paul revoke my citizenship?

I was born here with birthright citizenship. My dad is not a citizen, but my mom is.

My dad pays taxes just like everyone else and has his own SSCard.

I started a private c-class corporation, been in business for a few years now. No debt, no loans, Austrian style.... and probably pay more taxes than your average person combined....

If someone is here illegally or an anchor baby what difference would it make if they are successful or pay more taxes?
Because someone benefited from an illegal act I am supposed to look the other way? What about legal citizens who would be doing the job instead of an illegal. What happens to them?

[furface]

AGAINST having outback Nazi law enforcement agencies asking me for my fucking papers because I look vaguely ethnic.

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. From what I can tell, all the new law is saying is that if a cop comes into contact with you, he can question your legal residency. What exactly "lawful contact" is is a good question of course. I would interpret it to mean that you've arrested for an unrelated offense. I doubt it means pulling over any brown people they feel like. That is "unlawful."

Sorry, I don't have a good link for the law, but this is what I've found.



B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).


I also believe that communities have the right to preserve their resources against illegal use of them. You enroll your kids in school, immigration check for everybody. You show up at an ER without insurance, immigration check. Only an idiot society wouldn't do that, and we're living in an idiot society.

Political borders are a basic human right, a natural right of people. Otherwise a globalist entity will emerge with a ruling class that shops the world for the cheapest slaves, just like we have now.

[ChaosControl]

I'm not FOR illegal immigration either. I just am not really for spending the money to deport them all or ask people for papers.

So I can't really see where I disagree with him on this issue.

[Smitty]

I'd say about 1/3 of the posters here are NOT Ron Paul supporters but just shills looking to recruit into their big 'gubbment' propaganda notions.

If anyone truly believes that these "pure libertarians" support Ron Paul, you are sorely mistaken. Most are here to do one thing -They are only here to sway minds and co-opt things.

You noticed that too, eh?

[BillyDkid]

For many years the borders between the US, Mexico and Canada were essentially open borders. People came and went freely and it was no issue at all. People routinely lived in one country and worked in another and even today many do that. It served the interests of all the country. Has nothing whatsoever to do with "one world government". If you are a US citizen, you are one whether you are here or in Europe or in South America. If you are not a citizen, being here doesn't make you one. If the idea of tight borders is to keep bad guys out (which is really where the border hysteria started after 911), well, good luck with that. We have tens of thousands of miles of unguarded coast line.

[furface]

For many years the borders between the US, Mexico and Canada were essentially open borders. People came and went freely and it was no issue at all.

When you say "for many years," what time period are you talking about? Mexican immigration was actually an issue leading up to the Great Depression of the 1930s. There was a surge in illegal immigration during the boom times and after everything went bust it became a big issue. Sound familiar? I would wager that illegal immigration played a role in causing the Depression as well, just like illegal immigration is a negative factor in our economy.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=illegal+immigration+great+depression

[Stary Hickory]

When you say "for many years," what time period are you talking about? Mexican immigration was actually an issue leading up to the Great Depression of the 1930s. There was a surge in illegal immigration during the boom times and after everything went bust it became a big issue. Sound familiar? I would wager that illegal immigration played a role in causing the Depression as well, just like illegal immigration is a negative factor in our economy.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=illegal+immigration+great+depression

One argument that cannot be used against imigration of any kind is the one against competing foreign labor. Making labor more abundant is always good. As long as they are productive it does not matter, there is ample opportunity for grwoth in this country providing the laws don't hinder it.

However there is a real problem when we have a run away entitlement state. And a government that is ruled by the mob and their demogauges. When human rights and property rights are secure and garanteed no matter what politicians do or say then imigration is not an issue.

Illegal immigration did not cause the great depression or contribute to it. It became an issue only because people were desparate for jobs and were looking for scape goats. It was the painful (and drawn out thank you FDR) market reorganizing after the inflationary bubble burst in the stock market that caused high unemployment. Of course foreigners and illegals are looked at then as extra competitors, but it was no means their fault the economy exploded.

[osan]

so, would Ron Paul revoke my citizenship?

I was born here with birthright citizenship. My dad is not a citizen, but my mom is.

My dad pays taxes just like everyone else and has his own SSCard.

I started a private c-class corporation, been in business for a few years now. No debt, no loans, Austrian style.... and probably pay more taxes than your average person combined....

That would be ex post facto. If you bother to read the Constitution you will see that this is expressly forbidden.

[TruthisTreason]

Ironically, the first thing that attracted me to Ron Paul's Presidential run was his clear stance of No Amnesty!

[Toureg89]

yes...

[MelissaCato]

YES I SUPPORT HIM 1776%!!! This is why i love this man! RON PAUL R3VOLUTION 2012! :D

Ya Ya Ya what above said. :D:D:D

Ron Paul 2012 !!!

[tmosley]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. From what I can tell, all the new law is saying is that if a cop comes into contact with you, he can question your legal residency. What exactly "lawful contact" is is a good question of course. I would interpret it to mean that you've arrested for an unrelated offense. I doubt it means pulling over any brown people they feel like. That is "unlawful."

Sorry, I don't have a good link for the law, but this is what I've found.



I also believe that communities have the right to preserve their resources against illegal use of them. You enroll your kids in school, immigration check for everybody. You show up at an ER without insurance, immigration check. Only an idiot society wouldn't do that, and we're living in an idiot society.

Political borders are a basic human right, a natural right of people. Otherwise a globalist entity will emerge with a ruling class that shops the world for the cheapest slaves, just like we have now.

Nope, their law says you the police can ask ANYONE at ANY TIME for their papers if they have "reasonable suspicion" that they are here illegally. This means that if you should "mouth off" to a police officer, they can arrest you as an illegal immigrant, even if that clearly isn't the case. Depending on how strong the thin blue line is, they could just claim that your ID is forged and throw you out of the country. The most likely scenario is that they can put you in a box over the weekend until you can get in front of a judge to prove that you are an American. In the meantime, perhaps your business can't open and you go bankrupt.

This is Nazi America. If they pass a law like this in Texas, I'm fucking out of here.

Also, your last paragraph confuses me. We must keep borders because if we get rid of them something that has already happened despite the existence of borders will happen?

[peacepotpaul]

And that's exactly my point of view. There is no benefit to the united states because of illegal immigration.


Yes there is, just not directly to you. Cheap labor saves employers money.
Cheap votes saves politicians money.



People don't contribute to society. They don't pay taxes. They are not able to to acquire knowledge to contribute more so society.


Why would anybody but a socialist think that's bad?
And even if they paid income tax, that's still only 15% of their income, consider that employers save 50-75% for hiring them, it's quite negligible.




But for god's sake, if somebody wants to life and work in the united states, why shouldn't it be possible to do like everybody else ?! People don't choose where they are born but if they are grown up they should be able to decide on their own how they want so live.

because some places don't welcome them, regardless of whether they contribute.

[peacepotpaul]

Key word:

Illegal

he supports Immigration, as its a large part of our Nation. He would make the process more efficient.

that makes no sense unless you want to legalize and offer amnesty. what could be more efficient and cheap than to forgive and forget their trespasses?

saying "I'm against illegal immigration, but for immigration" is like saying "I'm against illegal warfare, but for warfare" or "I'm against illegal abortions, but for abortions". (replace that word with drugs, taxes, search & seizures, and you get the picture).

It's not answering any question, just pushing the responsibility to lawmakers, if they make it legal, you'll accept it.

[furface]

Making labor more abundant is always good.

This statement is absurd. The only people in America who make a decent living anymore are in state protected monopolies for instance doctors, nurses, engineers, government workers, and bankers. It's like this everywhere in the world.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence that workers don't need to be protected, but overwhelming evidence that they do. The method that the United States has chosen to marginally protect workers is the corporate welfare state, the idea being that if you protect corporations and big government, then some of that wealth will flow down to ordinary workers.

Open borders and free trade protects government unions, entitlement beneficiaries, and people with large amounts of fixed wealth. Why wouldn't they be in favor of things that drive down wages? They have money or income that they get regardless, and they don't have to find a job. They want cheap goods, not a job. Ask someone who's in the marketplace for a non-protected job and see if they are in favor or open borders and "free" trade.

[Anti Federalist]

Ron Paul is Against Illegal Immigration; Do you still support him?

Yes.

[axiomata]

Ron Paul is an Illegal Immigrant; Do you still support him?

[winston_blade]

This statement is absurd. The only people in America who make a decent living anymore are in state protected monopolies for instance doctors, nurses, engineers, government workers, and bankers. It's like this everywhere in the world.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence that workers don't need to be protected, but overwhelming evidence that they do. The method that the United States has chosen to marginally protect workers is the corporate welfare state, the idea being that if you protect corporations and big government, then some of that wealth will flow down to ordinary workers.

Open borders and free trade protects government unions, entitlement beneficiaries, and people with large amounts of fixed wealth. Why wouldn't they be in favor of things that drive down wages? They have money or income that they get regardless, and they don't have to find a job. They want cheap goods, not a job. Ask someone who's in the marketplace for a non-protected job and see if they are in favor or open borders and "free" trade.

What would you say is a decent living?

Free trade is great, man. It's the only fair way to do things.

[CUnknown]

Also, I would hope for your sake that your beliefs are based on something more stable than the caprices of a politician (however adorable that politician may be).

Ron Paul's word is not infallible, and he is not able to redefine "liberty" to accommodate the various political necessities imposed by his district.

He can be wrong.

You don't support Paul anymore because he doesn't support illegal immigration? Uh ... WTF .... Illegal. These are people breaking the law. No one should support that. Now, it makes sense to say "Our immigration policies are too strict, I'm for making them more permissive" but .... to say you don't support someone because he doesn't support illegal anything is a little messed up.

I mean, Ron Paul doesn't support marijuana being illegal, but he's not telling people to go out and smoke it... there's a difference between those two things man...

And a further difference between these things is that weed smoking doesn't harm anyone but possibly the smoker, whereas illegal immigration might cost people their jobs, tax money, etc...

Now I agree that constantly harping on immigrants as a big problem can be over the top and borderline racist... but merely pointing it out that they have committed a crime? I mean ... wtf... how is that wrong?

[tremendoustie]

You don't support Paul anymore because he doesn't support illegal immigration? Uh ... WTF .... Illegal. These are people breaking the law. No one should support that. Now, it makes sense to say "Our immigration policies are too strict, I'm for making them more permissive" but .... to say you don't support someone because he doesn't support illegal anything is a little messed up.


What if you lived in 1830, and a politician opposed those who help slaves escape, and supported their arrest? Wouldn't you disagree with that politician? This case is not as severe, but the principle is the same.

I support RP, but he's wrong on this issue. A person as a right to allow whomever they want, on their land -- neighbors do not have a right to dictate to other neighbors that they only allow individuals on their land who have paid them fees or filed paperwork.

[Andrew Ryan]

excerpts from:
Founding fathers were immigration skeptics
by thomas e. Woods, jr.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21626



contrary to what most americans may believe, in fact, the founding fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the united states lacked people with particular skills, then the founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.

in one of the most neglected sections of his notes on virginia, thomas jefferson posed the question, “are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

what was likely to happen, according to jefferson, was that immigrants would come to america from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind --ideas and principles that were often at odds with american liberty.

“suppose 20 millions of republican americans thrown all of a sudden into france, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” jefferson asked. “if it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.” +1776

[peacepotpaul]

I mean, Ron Paul doesn't support marijuana being illegal, but he's not telling people to go out and smoke it... there's a difference between those two things man...



did he not say he sympathizes with King, Gandhi and Ed Brown for civil disobedience (for the sake of argument, i'm not the expert on historical facts regarding the 3 people, but I think it's the idea of breaking the law without using violence and harming other people directly)?

[TC95]

Ron Paul is an Illegal Immigrant; Do you still support him?

No he isn't. Would I if he was? No.

[John Taylor]

No he isn't. Would I if he was? No.

He wouldn't be a very constitutional congressman if he were an illegal...

[UtahApocalypse]

Ron Paul is not for breaking the LAW. Oh No!

[tmosley]

This statement is absurd. The only people in America who make a decent living anymore are in state protected monopolies for instance doctors, nurses, engineers, government workers, and bankers. It's like this everywhere in the world.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence that workers don't need to be protected, but overwhelming evidence that they do. The method that the United States has chosen to marginally protect workers is the corporate welfare state, the idea being that if you protect corporations and big government, then some of that wealth will flow down to ordinary workers.

Open borders and free trade protects government unions, entitlement beneficiaries, and people with large amounts of fixed wealth. Why wouldn't they be in favor of things that drive down wages? They have money or income that they get regardless, and they don't have to find a job. They want cheap goods, not a job. Ask someone who's in the marketplace for a non-protected job and see if they are in favor or open borders and "free" trade.

Your ideology is absurd. If you want worker protections, go live in Greece.

[John Taylor]

Your ideology is absurd. If you want worker protections, go live in Greece.

While I agree with your analysis of this feller's economic ideology, you seem a little hasty to be playing the "love open borders or leave the U.S. card". I've heard it used before.... who was that again? Oh, yeah, BUSH.

[fj45lvr]

I am for policing the border, making legal immigration easier, removing quotas, and AGAINST having outback Nazi law enforcement agencies asking me for my fucking papers because I look vaguely ethnic.

There are ways to deal with illegal immigration that don't involve the utter destruction of American freedoms.

clamp down the border....easy.

[tmosley]

While I agree with your analysis of this feller's economic ideology, you seem a little hasty to be playing the "love open borders or leave the U.S. card". I've heard it used before.... who was that again? Oh, yeah, BUSH.

I have never said I was for open borders. I am against being accosted by police for no reason. I am also against giving the police any more authority than they already have. Once arbitrary detentions start, things go downhill FAST.

I have said repeatedly in this thread and others that I am for militarization of the border. I am also for repealing the quota system, and speeding up the admission process. This way, we screen out the criminals and terrorists, but let the people who want to work in.

[Fozz]

No.

There is a difference between disagreeing with RP on one issue and renouncing your support for him.

[Vessol]

Just because Ron Paul believes something doesn't mean we all have to necessarily believe in it, just saying.

[RM918]

It's perfectly fine to disagree with Paul on a few things. Hell, it's perfectly fine to disagree with Paul on a LOT of things. Even further, you can not agree with Paul even remotely on a single issue. So long as you support him, why should I be hostile?

[RedStripe]

I don't support Ron Paul on this issue at all.

[MelissaWV]

Ron Paul is against Illegal Immigration, and he's against e-verify.

I'm in absolute agreement with him, which is why I despise the AZ bill, and hope something better is devised by Arizona... before Big Government leaps in and "saves the day."

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Im not for amnesty either.

But Im also not for the b.s. Arizona law which just gives the police state even more power.

[Vessol]

I don't think even the anarchists here are for amnesty unless we get rid of the welfare system.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I don't think even the anarchists here are for amnesty unless we get rid of the welfare system.

Im not an anarchist but I endorse this message.

[RedStripe]

I don't think even the anarchists here are for amnesty unless we get rid of the welfare system.

I support amnesty, and I think that the welfare system should be the very last component of government to get the axe.

[awake]

Stop the transfer of private property from those who own it to others who want it without voluntarily exchanging for it.

I am glad that I officially have a non agreeable view with Ron Paul. I would not want to be come an Ayn Randian. Even Ron Paul disagrees with his mentor Mises on certain views...

[tremendoustie]

I don't think even the anarchists here are for amnesty unless we get rid of the welfare system.

I support eliminating welfare and violations of property rights (immigration law).

I'll take either, but would prefer both.

[AlexMerced]

so, would Ron Paul revoke my citizenship?

I was born here with birthright citizenship. My dad is not a citizen, but my mom is.

My dad pays taxes just like everyone else and has his own SSCard.

I started a private c-class corporation, been in business for a few years now. No debt, no loans, Austrian style.... and probably pay more taxes than your average person combined....

No, he wouldn't revoke your citizenship, he's move advocating more terms on how citizenship is inherited so basically if you born to parents who aren't even legal residents of the country why should you get citizenship? This I agree with, I agree with Ron Pauls stance on immigration the way he puts, as a position of the rule of law, if you break the law it must be enforced.

I am for enforcing the current laws, yet Ron Paul like myself both believe in enforcing the law yet fighting for a world where the laws enforcement becomes less neccessary so this is where ROn Paul has spoken about abolishing welfare and opening up trade with Cuba and freeing up trade by ending some of these trade agreements that restrict more than free up trade.

No ones saying don't enforce the law, where I have problem is where privacy and the constitution gets thrown out the window to enforce the law, like the arizona bill in getting illegals or the patriots act in catching terrorist.

Illegal behavior should be enforced, but I think most would agree murder is much worse crime yet we don't create a law saying "If one reasonably suspects your a murderer" that you can be incarcerated. The offensive things here is how much more harsh we're treating this crimes versus much more vicious crimes.

No should immigration be a crime at all is different, in the 80's Ron Paul was for open borders but he changed his mind cause of the effects of the welfare state, and knew that had to be dealt with first. So while this law must be enforced there's nothing hypocritical with saying enforce a law I don't agree with, but advocating abolishing that law.

Like I don't feel drugs laws are fair or constitutional, but I don't feel sorry for people who carelessly break the law and get in trouble for it, the law is the law. I don't like it, so I advocate change civily.

[AlexMerced]

Stop the transfer of private property from those who own it to others who want it without voluntarily exchanging for it.

I am glad that I officially have a non agreeable view with Ron Paul. I would not want to be come an Ayn Randian. Even Ron Paul disagrees with his mentor Mises on certain views...

I actually agree with Ron Paul on 99% of everything if see where HE's coming from, I can't think of many disagreements except maybe he's a little too forgiving of Jeffersons embargo... I love Jeffersons rhetoric, but that was pretty screwed up.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I support amnesty, and I think that the welfare system should be the very last component of government to get the axe.

Yeah I'm an anarchist and I believe in getting rid of welfare before opening the borders completely. I don't see how you can be for government handouts and call yourself an anarchist, but ok.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on this, but of course I still support him.