PDA

View Full Version : Will Immigration Issue Tear Apart the Ron Paul Coalition?




stu2002
05-06-2010, 04:43 AM
Is the Ron Paul coalition imploding?

Some recent chain emails have revealed that things may not be well in Ron Paul land. Over at the website Daily Paul, some libertarian bloggers have been parroting hysteria about the Arizona immigration law that one would expect to hear from La Raza or anti-occidental NeoMarxists. Already Judge Andrew Napolitano and some at Fox News have perpetuated the NeoMarxists trope — common among neocons — that this law echoes Nazi practices. In fact, the Judge in his libertarian understanding of law thinks that being in the country illegally is not even a crime. Now some libertarian bloggers at Daily Paul fan the flames that this law will require everyone to carry a national ID and will crush all individual freedoms — like the neocon trope, it’s 1939 all over again. Nevermind that all these myths were easily dispelled by Kris Kobach in a recent op-ed. And nevermind that, viewed historically, the AZ measures (contrasted with the Old Right’s patriotic Immigration Act of 1924 or President Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback“) are attenuated and politically correct. What is noteworthy in this development, however, is the fact that libertarians in general are parroting La Raza talking points and oddly believe that any attempt to stop mass immigration from the Third World is a violation of individual liberty.

At Alternative Right, Patrick J. Ford’s post and ensuing comments show how the Arizona immigration bill demonstrates the politically correct, anti-Western tendencies of many libertarians. Like Marxists, libertarians are economic reductionists. It thus should be no surprise that their loyalty to the West runs no deeper than that of the Cultural Marxist.

Warped by the atomistic ideology of libertarianism, these libertarian bloggers unsurprisingly are out of step with public sentiment. Around 70% of the people in Arizona support the law and nearly everyone I know who voted for Ron Paul in the last presidential primary would easily place himself in the “immigration restrictionist” camp. Frankly, I fail to understand in what fantasy land these libertarians live. If Ron Paul’s district should suddenly become 85% mestizo, do libertarians honestly think that these new constituents would elect Paul or any other libertarian for that matter?

Nearly ever week or so, someone from Campaign for Liberty or another libertarian group telephones to ask for money. Today I copied down the phone number of a pay phone in front of a local Home Depot where migrant workers congregate. Henceforth, I’ll give the libertarian caller this pay-phone number and tell him to ask the Mexicans at this number for money, since these people seem to be libertarians’ real concern. I encourage others to do the same.

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=5297

RM918
05-06-2010, 05:18 AM
If we survived the great Matt Collins handshake debacle, I think we'll survive this.

AuH20
05-06-2010, 05:40 AM
Libertarians are always bemoaning the distressing number of native-born zombies walking around in the U.S., which in turn makes a large share of their platform unpalatable, yet they have no qualms about laying down the red carpet for a huge block of ethnically insulated foreign nationals who aren't even literate in their own language! Good luck on the most ambitious and frankly insane cultural education endeavor ever embarked upon. Hello gun, meet foot!

Stary Hickory
05-06-2010, 05:55 AM
I must add the inconsistency is quite funny. Stop the NWO and stop globalization...yada yada, but when it comes to protecting the borders and securing our freedom many cannot seem to manage to do it.

bobbyw24
05-06-2010, 05:57 AM
I must add the inconsistency is quite funny. Stop the NWO and stop globalization...yada yada, but when it comes to protecting the borders and securing our freedom many cannot seem to manage to do it.

Exactly

dean.engelhardt
05-06-2010, 06:06 AM
What an article full of trash. I want the 3 minute of my life back I used to read it.

MelissaWV
05-06-2010, 06:08 AM
The article is a mischaracterization, but I'm not shocked. Disagreement isn't a problem for me. The type and nature of the disagreement is at least as important as the divide itself, and in this all sides of the debate have (with very little exception) presented facts in a calm manner to one another.

The trouble with these little blurbs is that they attempt to force a false two-choice scenario, where if you don't like the AZ law then you are for open borders, amnesty, anarchy, a one-world government, and probably eating babies. I especially enjoyed the little jab at how if Ron Paul's district's ethnic makeup changed overnight, "THEY" would not elect him, so that's good enough reason to be against "THEM." That was a nice touch.

The only way to be correct, it seems, is to support any and every law that would limit immigration or punish illegals, even if the law in question is flawed or downright ill-conceived. I suppose it does not occur to anyone that one can be against the AZ law, but can also be for immigration law changes and crackdowns based on the behavior that's supposedly at the heart of this whole thing?

stu2002
05-06-2010, 06:09 AM
It took you 3 minutes to read? Wow

AuH20
05-06-2010, 06:20 AM
The article is a mischaracterization, but I'm not shocked. Disagreement isn't a problem for me. The type and nature of the disagreement is at least as important as the divide itself, and in this all sides of the debate have (with very little exception) presented facts in a calm manner to one another.

The trouble with these little blurbs is that they attempt to force a false two-choice scenario, where if you don't like the AZ law then you are for open borders, amnesty, anarchy, a one-world government, and probably eating babies. I especially enjoyed the little jab at how if Ron Paul's district's ethnic makeup changed overnight, "THEY" would not elect him, so that's good enough reason to be against "THEM." That was a nice touch.

The only way to be correct, it seems, is to support any and every law that would limit immigration or punish illegals, even if the law in question is flawed or downright ill-conceived. I suppose it does not occur to anyone that one can be against the AZ law, but can also be for immigration law changes and crackdowns based on the behavior that's supposedly at the heart of this whole thing?

Well, I'm glad that you haven't swallowed the entire globalist agenda. (jk) In all seriousness, if some libertarians want to oppose the law on the grounds of POTENTIAL abuses by the authorities that's fine with me. At the same time, don't tell me that unfettered mass emigration of a largely uneducated and impoverished peoples is somehow going to shrink the welfare state and encourage the growth of liberty in this country.

TonySutton
05-06-2010, 06:28 AM
Everyone is not going to agree on everything 100%. We are not RP clones. If we were able to end the welfare state and end corporatism, the explosion of economic growth would make immigration a minor issue. End the war on drugs and we would see less violence related to immigration along the southern border. All of a sudden the whole immigration issue would be barely noticeable.

cjm
05-06-2010, 06:29 AM
If we focus on ridding ourselves of the welfare state, most immigration questions will be moot. Libertarians that advocate open borders before the elimination of the welfare state are not being realistic. But closing a border and defending it is much different than letting folks in and subsequently demanding IDs from everyone (specifics of the Arizona law are discussed on other threads -- I'm not claiming that particular law allows this, just pointing out the slippery slope argument).

Libertarians are justified in their concern about the threat of using national ID cards as an anti-immigration tool, but those same libertarians need to recognize that the open border policy is completely ridiculous while we have a massive welfare state. The compromise here is to secure the border at the border, and dismantle the welfare state first. Once we've done that, well, then we can discuss who can come and go and I suspect we'll find more agreement on the topic.

bobbyw24
05-06-2010, 06:29 AM
Everyone is not going to agree on everything 100%. We are not RP clones. If we were able to end the welfare state and end corporatism, the explosion of economic growth would push make immigration a minor issue. End the war on drugs and we would see less violence related to the immigration along the southern border. All of a sudden the whole immigration issue would be barely noticeable.

I agree, but who really thinks we will ever END the welfare state? I would be shocked if we shrunk it by 10%

cjm
05-06-2010, 06:35 AM
I agree, but who really thinks we will ever END the welfare state? I would be shocked if we shrunk it by 10%

I'm pretty pessimistic these days about *us* ending the welfare state. Fortunately though, the welfare state will inevitably end itself.

dean.engelhardt
05-06-2010, 07:11 AM
It took you 3 minutes to read? Wow

Ya, I'm a slow reader. I get that from my wife too.

Bucjason
05-06-2010, 07:17 AM
I agree, but who really thinks we will ever END the welfare state? I would be shocked if we shrunk it by 10%

Then why the hell are we even here ?? We might as well shut off our computers and curl up in a little ball, because according to you, we've lost...

Bucjason
05-06-2010, 07:19 AM
I'm pretty pessimistic these days about *us* ending the welfare state. Fortunately though, the welfare state will inevitably end itself.

Agreed , and that's why i support illegal immigration . It will bankrupt the welfare state and thereby accomplish our goal of ending it.

literatim
05-06-2010, 07:22 AM
Agreed , and that's why i support illegal immigration . It will bankrupt the welfare state and thereby accomplish our goal of ending it.

Yeah, because what we want on our soil when the system comes crashing down is a bunch of uneducated third wolders that can start raping and pillaging. We've got enough of them as it is in our cities to deal with.

ChaosControl
05-06-2010, 07:25 AM
Meh, the corporatism, federal reserve, and deficit spending are far bigger issues in my opinion. As long as we're united against those things, we can work on the other things later.

TonySutton
05-06-2010, 07:27 AM
I agree, but who really thinks we will ever END the welfare state? I would be shocked if we shrunk it by 10%

I believe the welfare state is going to end itself, similar to what we are seeing in Greece today. Our current welfare state is pushing business out of the country and as it does we are running out of money to fund the welfare state. Add to this the baby boomers retiring and we see a real problem developing.

It is important that we are organized, vocal and ready to step in as the machine starts to fall apart. We must drum into the public that those responsible for the mess should not be allowed to fix it.

Pennsylvania
05-06-2010, 07:30 AM
Seems like someone is really trying to drive a wedge to split libertarians and conservatives over immigration.

As if this is the first disagreement this group has ever had. :rolleyes:

"tear apart the ron paul coalition"....lmao

amy31416
05-06-2010, 07:32 AM
Agreed , and that's why i support illegal immigration . It will bankrupt the welfare state and thereby accomplish our goal of ending it.

It's pretty naive to think that if the system collapses that it will be replaced by something better, much less the original Constitutional Republic, especially when there's no plan on how to go about it.

Imaginos
05-06-2010, 08:08 AM
Seems like someone is really trying to drive a wedge to split libertarians and conservatives over immigration.

As if this is the first disagreement this group has ever had. :rolleyes:

"tear apart the ron paul coalition"....lmao
Yeap, it's same old 'divide and conquer' approach from the establishment.

paulitics
05-06-2010, 08:36 AM
Agreed , and that's why i support illegal immigration . It will bankrupt the welfare state and thereby accomplish our goal of ending it.

You can't be serious. You are incredibly naive if you think that a bankrupt welfare system is going to end all welfare when they can just print the money indefinately.

Hyperinflation will occur long before any collapse, and if you want a collapse of the system, you are no different than the anarchists living in some fantasy world that think the system that is replaced will be anything but tyrrany.

constituent
05-06-2010, 08:40 AM
Hyperinflation will occur long before any collapse, and if you want a collapse of the system, you are no different than the anarchists living in some fantasy world that think the system that is replaced will be anything but tyrrany.

Kind of like the folks who hate the New World Order (NWO) so much that they want the military to police the border... ;) :)

AuH20
05-06-2010, 08:49 AM
You can't be serious. You are incredibly naive if you think that a bankrupt welfare system is going to end all welfare when they can just print the money indefinately.

Hyperinflation will occur long before any collapse, and if you want a collapse of the system, you are no different than the anarchists living in some fantasy world that think the system that is replaced will be anything but tyrrany.

And they are authorized per the emergency powers act to grab land, resources and 401ks if necessary. The welfare state will finally crumble and take everyone with it in it's wake.

libertygrl
05-06-2010, 09:45 AM
I am very much torn over this issue. And I am speaking from the perspective as someone who became politically active for the first time because of illegal immigration in my area.

The open borders policy of our government then led me to discover other even more sinister agendas, such as the NAU, the IMF, NWO, etc., etc. I became more liberty minded after discovering and supporting Ron Paul back in 07 - thus the dilemma!

I feel AZ has the right to defend itself against illegal immigration yet my concern is whether this action is more about American citizens eventually losing their liberty rather than illegal immigration itself. Is this just another problem, reaction, solution scheme so that REAL ID will eventually be proposed again and this time accepted????

I am treading very cautiously over this issue, trying not to allow my emotions to overcome my intellect. So I continue to watch this very closely to see how it plays out...

klamath
05-06-2010, 09:57 AM
I think that the most efective way to cut the welfare magnet is to outlaw all bilingual government forms.

catdd
05-06-2010, 10:07 AM
It won't tear it apart because we agree on most other issues, but this is becoming a very real problem.

MelissaWV
05-06-2010, 10:27 AM
I think that the most efective way to cut the welfare magnet is to outlaw all bilingual government forms.

I don't think the forms should be "outlawed," but outsourcing would be nice. If an organization would like to provide official translations of Government forms to the community, and assume responsibility for the accuracy of those forms, they should be able to do so as a charitible action. They could even put their organization's name somewhere on the form.

I don't want to pay for them if I don't use them or want them.

Obviously with things like the driver's license test, there is a valid reason to not have translated forms (there will not be organizations to translate road signs). Informational brochures, though, applications, tax forms, and any other documents along those lines should be up for grabs to be translated as I said.

silentshout
05-06-2010, 11:34 AM
Lol at the writer expecting that we are supposed to agree on everything. I guess I forgot to read the memo that lists EXACTLY what I am supposed to support if I like Ron Paul. lmao

Brian4Liberty
05-06-2010, 11:45 AM
Seems like someone is really trying to drive a wedge to split libertarians and conservatives over immigration.

As if this is the first disagreement this group has ever had. :rolleyes:

"tear apart the ron paul coalition"....lmao

That's what they are trying to do.

It's hard to see how this issue will "tear apart the Ron Paul Coalition". It's not a new issue (From a Sept. 2007 Ron Paul Interview (http://www.vdare.com/pb/070912_paul.htm)):


You have a long record of being a serious libertarian. You must have libertarians who are annoyed with you on this.

I imagine there are some, because there are some who literally don’t believe in any borders! Totally free immigration! I’ve never taken that position.

Why not?

Because I believe in national sovereignty.

Inflation
05-06-2010, 11:46 PM
That's what they are trying to do.

It's hard to see how this issue will "tear apart the Ron Paul Coalition". It's not a new issue (From a Sept. 2007 Ron Paul Interview (http://www.vdare.com/pb/070912_paul.htm)):


You have a long record of being a serious libertarian. You must have libertarians who are annoyed with you on this.

I imagine there are some, because there are some who literally don’t believe in any borders! Totally free immigration! I’ve never taken that position.

Why not?

Because I believe in national sovereignty.



Bookmarked

fj45lvr
05-07-2010, 12:25 AM
Liberty vanquished over Politics??

Live_Free_Or_Die
05-07-2010, 12:34 AM
I agree, but who really thinks we will ever END the welfare state? I would be shocked if we shrunk it by 10%

I keep seeing this argument repeated and I only have one question. If it can't be shrunk then why the fuck have people like me who have suggested just about everything under the sun to restore liberty except political elections been marginalized and dismissed in favor of supporting politics?

tpreitzel
05-07-2010, 12:37 AM
I keep seeing this argument repeated and I only have one question. If it can't be shrunk then why the fuck have people like me who have suggested just about everything under the sun to restore liberty outside of political elections been marginalized and dismissed in favor of supporting politics?

Legitimate question. Personally, I think entitlements can and will be shrunk, but the necessary conditions are still forming.

Lord Xar
05-07-2010, 01:00 AM
I must add the inconsistency is quite funny. Stop the NWO and stop globalization...yada yada, but when it comes to protecting the borders and securing our freedom many cannot seem to manage to do it.

truth.

This is why the libertarian party will implode, or be as it is.
It has a tremendous inability to see beyond itself, thus the expression "can't see the forest behind the trees'" apply to a great extent to libertarians. I use to have a buddy on these forums who use to say "There are all kinds of libertarians.. some who want strong borders" - Come on board and help change the direction. I almost did. Until I read what many of the posters here ascribe to....

It seems all we have here are borderline statists masquerading as libertarians.

Live_Free_Or_Die
05-07-2010, 01:09 AM
truth.

This is why the libertarian party will implode, or be as it is.
It has a tremendous inability to see beyond itself, thus the expression "can't see the forest behind the trees'" apply to a great extent to libertarians. I use to have a buddy on these forums who use to say "There are all kinds of libertarians.. some who want strong borders" - Come on board and help change the direction. I almost did. Until I read what many of the posters here ascribe to....

It seems all we have here are borderline statists masquerading as libertarians.

I am equally disgusted with with people who claim to be constitutionalists and subvert the document at any opportunity to suit their agenda.