PDA

View Full Version : Fatal position on "illegals"




antboy
10-20-2007, 02:32 AM
The current, horrible radio ad for Ron Paul has created a real dilemma for me, and for all of us who support him. It leads with a strong condemnation of those who would offer "amnesty for illegals", and anyone who follows up by going to his web site will see a clarification at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/ that makes several statements which have no constitutional or libertarian defense, as far as I can determine, including a promise to do "whatever it takes" to control the borders and immigration. I have not been able to come up with any way to defend against the following argument:

-----------

Ron Paul believes that certain people in this country are "illegal," because they haven't satisfied Federal requirements to prove they are legal. He further believes that the Federal government has the authority to prevent such people from entering, traveling, living, and working in this country (he also believes they shouldn't receive tax-supported benefits, but I have no problem understanding and agreeing with that).

(1) Where does the Constitution authorize the Federal government to restrict the entry, travel, living, and working of people in this country? It only permits the Federal government to set standards for citizenship and the associated right to vote, not quotas and rules for entry, travel, living, and working in the country.

(2) What form of compulsory national identification will each person have to keep with them at all times to prove to the national security forces of the Paul administration that they qualify as a legal person? What national database of legal people will the Paul administration maintain? Will all government officials enforcing his dictum have access to this database of all people in the country?

(3) What system of mandatory fingerprinting and/or biometric identification will be required of all to prove they are legal people with the right to stay, travel, live, and work in the country?

(4) If a state doesn't want the federal government protecting its borders and doesn't want to adopt the Paul administration's standards identifying legal people, will a Paul administration claim the right to overrule that state and enforce its own rules about who is legal and who is illegal in opposition to that state's laws?

(5) What exactly makes a human being who has not used force against anyone else "illegal," other than an arbitrary set of government regulations? If a majority of people can decide who is legal and who is not in the US, how does this differ from similar majority decisions in Nazi Germany, Communist China, the former Soviet Union, and elsewhere?

---------------

The only answer I've ever been able to offer is that Paul hasn't thought through what is necessary to enforce his opposition to "amnesty for illegals" and his determination to do "whatever it takes" to secure our borders, and that when he does consider the implications, he will take the side of liberty and give up the hopeless task of creating a Federal profile of a legal person and requiring all people to be able to prove they meet it or else be denied recognition of the right to stay, travel, live, and work in the country.

I indicate, as I think many of you do, that what he really plans to do is to deny tax-subsidized benefits to people who cannot prove citizenship, and since nobody is entitled to tax-subsidized benefits in the first place, this is not a violation of anyone's human rights. The bottom line is that I need to convince people that Paul doesn't mean deportation or the denial of the right to stay, travel, live, and work when he talks about "opposing amnesty for illegals" and all the other measures on his web site, and in fact would allow anyone to enter, travel, live, and work in this country regardless of whether they could prove to a national police officer that they were "legal." They just couldn't vote or get Federal, tax-subsidized benefits.

In other words, the best argument I can make is that he is pandering to the nativists to get the Republican nomination, and really only intends to use the denial of Federal tax-subsidized benefits and voting rights to immigrants as a way of eliminating inappropriate incentives for immigration so that only those coming to work will have a motivation. In other words: wink, wink, nod, nod, he doesn't mean it about illegals, and will take the side of liberty when the conflict becomes obvious.

This is not satisfactory. Does anyone have a better defense of his attitude toward "illegal" people? Better yet, is there any chance for Paul to read his copy of the Constitution again and realize that he holds one position that is devastating to his support of liberty and that will get him branded a hypocrite and just another pandering politician?

I've contributed significant time and money to this campaign, and don't want it to end up having it become another Buchanan-like flash-in-the-pan, but the other candidates and their staffs are too smart not to see how they can discredit his claim of being a unique spokesman for liberty once they view him as a threat, and Paul must clarify, in a libertarian and constitutional manner, what he actually intends to support as a means of dealing with all the fuss over immigrants. I have no doubt that he WON'T do "whatever it takes" to exclude illegal immigrants, especially since what it will take is a mandatory national ID and biometric identification of all people and a large police force authorized to haul people away when they cannot provide these to his satisfaction, and a system of electronic tracking of every visitor to this country, and ... oh, you all get the point by now.

Note that any claimed "national security" exception would be even worse, since he then becomes no different from Bush-Cheney, with "national security" trumping all the rights under the Constitution.

Does anyone have an answer? For those who agree with me, any thoughts on how we get the Paul campaign to clarify, in a libertarian and constitutional way, the exact measures he supports and doesn't support to deal with concerns over immigration, and how they jibe with the Constitution? Absent that, our opponents will surely portray it in the worst light possible (look at the way his accurate discussion of 9/11 motives is portrayed as "justifying" the attack for evidence of their ability to twist even correct positions). He must clarify, and drop the vague "no amnesty for illegals" and "whatever it takes" arguments in his ad and on his web site, unless he wants to become the Pat Buchanan of 2008.

Sorry for the length, but we'd better resolve this quickly, because the ad he is running and his web site puts "no amnesty for illegals" and "whatever it takes" to control illegals front and center in this campaign. Our movement is bigger and broader than that, and the momentum of this movement, especially in a time of great crises, must not be stopped by an unthinking inconsistency. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For all human beings.

austin356
10-20-2007, 02:53 AM
You really dont want Ron to win the REPUBLICAN nomination do you?

antboy
10-20-2007, 03:47 AM
You really dont want Ron to win the REPUBLICAN nomination do you?

I want him to become the 44th president. His integrity and consistency are the key, and what is making him stand out from the crowd is his position as the defender of the Constitution and of Liberty. Being one among the many Republicans promising to get tough with illegal immigrants doesn't stand out in the least, but does weaken his broad appeal (and is hard to reconcile with other positions). Even just to get the Republican nomination, he is going to need crossover votes from independents and people registering Republican just to vote for him. The more his consistent antiwar position attracts independents and liberals, the more likely that is to occur.

Getting the nomination and not beating the Democrat will be cold comfort. Moreover, his chance to put over a Jesse Ventura result as an Independent against two warmongers might be greater than his chance of getting an absolute majority as a Republican. And while we are all excited by the fact that politicians can no longer get away with saying one thing to one group and another thing to another, because of the Internet, that applies to him as well. He needs to say now what he wants to say in the general election. If we get the campaign to clarify and clean up its position on immigration, he'll thank us on inauguration day.

But the bottom line is that I want him to advocate what is right. Not discussing divisive issues can be a good idea in a campaign (and in a marriage), but openly advocating the wrong position is never a good idea. He can make a case for the removal of tax-subsidized benefits and easy citizenship, appeal to Republicans, and still be consistent with Liberty and the Constitution. I think that is what he should do.

Paul can win the nomination with his position on the war, civil liberties, the IRS, and the Fed, along with policies that are consistent with the Constitution to address the concern people have about illegals. Look at Ron Paul Nation, and note the percentage of his support coming from people who weren't Republicans in the last presidential year: his monetary support, even in the primary, is better served by focusing on a campaign for all Americans, and not just the Republican base.

But I understand your point, and do not in the least doubt its sincerity. I gather you don't have any better answers than I have been able to provide to the challenges I'm receiving.

jon_perez
10-20-2007, 04:33 AM
I thought the idea was to prevent non-citizens from illegally entering the country in the first place, so that all the Orwellian devices mentioned above need not be necessary.

Man from La Mancha
10-20-2007, 06:12 AM
Thank God Ron is not running libertarian. Your logic is that all 6 billion people in the world can can come live in the USA. Like I said before in other threads, just register your finger print as a USA citizen with absolutely no other data linked to it under severe penalty of law. When asked to give your print it will show that you are or are not a citizen but not even your name would show up.

.

antboy
10-20-2007, 06:17 AM
I thought the idea was to prevent non-citizens from illegally entering the country in the first place, so that all the Orwellian devices mentioned above need not be necessary.

Here's a Constitutional position:

(1) No citizenship without following the rules laid down by Congress.
(2) Those in this country not meeting the rules are not citizens, and cannot receive Federal benefits provided to citizens.
(3) They are still humans with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and as long as they don't violate the life or private property of another, may live their life without fear of government oppression.
(4) As the prosperity of a free society soars, there will be no need for scapegoats.

We don't need the rest.

As for whether any government program will ever succeed in making a border uncrossable ... :)

His site makes other vague promises: visa restrictions and enforcement (which couldn't possibly work without a universal ID requirement), and REAL immigration reform (if that doesn't sound like a typical politician, I don't know what does). And, of course, "no amnesty for illegals," which sounds to many people like "we're going to hunt you down no matter how long it takes."

Okay, let's see if I can defend Paul better:

(1) "No amnesty for illegals" just means no path to citizenship: he has no intention of deporting anyone or fining employers for hiring people without ID, since he doesn't believe in mandatory ID.

(2) The Federal government won't force state and local governments to provide services to non-citizens: this will be determined at those lower levels. Essentially, the same as his position on abortion.

(3) Federal benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare, which he has indicated he will maintain for a long transition period so that no dependent person suffers, will continue to require citizenship. He will be eliminating virtually all other federal benefits and mandates, as they are not constitutional.

(4) Protection of borders and shorelines and the requirement of a visa to enter the country are specifically Constitutional because their purpose is to protect our national security: people are being screened only to determine if they have done something that poses a physical danger to the citizens of this country. Since we will be following a foreign policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship, we don't expect many problems. Peaceful visitors and immigrants are welcome, as long as they respect the life and property of others while they are here. There will be no quotas on visas or immigration, as such quotas are neither authorized by the Constitution nor necessary for national security. We still welcome the tired, the poor, the huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, but as a beacon of liberty, we look forward to the day when other countries are also beacons of liberty, and people no longer have to leave their homeland and come to America to find peace, prosperity, and freedom. We want to export Liberty to the entire world, not by force, but by example.

(5) Citizenship is not the same as the right to travel, live, and work here. It will be a difficult and time-consuming process to become a citizen, justifiably so, as the melting pot of America is for people who think of themselves above all as Americans. Others may stay as our welcome guests, as long as they are peaceful.

Do you think that is an accurate portrayal of Dr. Paul's position?

Corydoras
10-20-2007, 08:12 AM
Hi, Antboy, welcome to the Ron Paul forums. I was looking at your few previous posts. Which of the other presidential candidates' campaigns are you with?

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 09:08 AM
Immigration (as opposed to naturalization) authority has mistakenly been given to the U.S. Congress under the Plenary Powers Doctrine. Sadly, in today's climate, this authority is actually protecting immigrants as well as those under the suspicion of being an immigrant. If the U.S. Congress did not have plenary power over immigration, then the power would reside with the individual states. With the culture protectionists that reside in power in many states, this would not result in an open border policy that most libertarians would prefer.

antboy
10-20-2007, 06:21 PM
Hi, Antboy, welcome to the Ron Paul forums. I was looking at your few previous posts. Which of the other presidential candidates' campaigns are you with?

I've given several hundred dollars to the Paul campaign and will be giving much more.

antboy
10-20-2007, 06:28 PM
Hi, Antboy, welcome to the Ron Paul forums. I was looking at your few previous posts. Which of the other presidential candidates' campaigns are you with?

More to the point: this part of the forum is supposed to help offer discussion points for winning support. I worded the challenges in the harshest manner possible because that is what is in the mind of many who are potential supporters based on his antiwar position, and I do hope that there will be more suggestions on how to deal with this objection.

Did you see my post on the FDA in the Ron Paul on the Issues Section? Do you really think that was written by someone not trying to get Paul elected? It is in the thread "Will Ron Paul end the FDA?" and is message #19 (Short answers on alternatives to the FDA). I provided discussion points and links and recommended reading for anyone hoping to get him elected. If you browse non-Paul sites, you'll also see my ID offering reasoned and respectful defense of Paul in response to sincere, undecided voters.

antboy
10-20-2007, 06:35 PM
Immigration (as opposed to naturalization) authority has mistakenly been given to the U.S. Congress under the Plenary Powers Doctrine. Sadly, in today's climate, this authority is actually protecting immigrants as well as those under the suspicion of being an immigrant. If the U.S. Congress did not have plenary power over immigration, then the power would reside with the individual states. With the culture protectionists that reside in power in many states, this would not result in an open border policy that most libertarians would prefer.

I agree that devolving immigration to the level of the states won't result in open borders because of cultural attitudes (of course, some states will decide to continue paying state tax-subsidized benefits to illegals: this isn't ALL going to go in one direction). It is also a Constitutional answer. I think it would make the most sense as Paul's position on border control, rather than promising as president to do "whatever it takes" to control the borders, which actually strengthens what you correctly call a mistaken doctrine.

antboy
10-20-2007, 06:52 PM
Thank God Ron is not running libertarian. Your logic is that all 6 billion people in the world can can come live in the USA. Like I said before in other threads, just register your finger print as a USA citizen with absolutely no other date to it under severe penalty of law. When asked to give your print it will show that you are or are not a citizen but not even your name would show up.

.

The question is what is Constitutional and consistent with Liberty. You've offered one possible answer: I won't quibble with your suggestion: I'm mainly looking for ideas, and you offered one. Thanks.

As for MY logic, it is that everyone on this planet has the right (not necessarily my approval) to do what they want if they are not violating the life or justly-acquired property of others. Absent government-paid benefits, the people who come will be the ones named on the Statue of Liberty. I don't believe that conflicts the views of Dr. Paul, and that the vagueness of his position here (come on, who ISN'T for "real immigration reform"?) is the result of him having not really figured out a Constitutional way for the Federal government to exclude immigrants. In that light, it shouldn't be a focus of his campaign, which is why having it specifically in his ad and linked on the front page of the campaign site is so frustrating to me.

BTW, I voted for Paul 20 years ago, which is more than most of the people on this forum can claim. I'm sorry some people think asking hard questions in a forum that was specifically to help us figure out how to discuss Paul's campaign with others is viewed as anti-Paul. I think it is anti-Paul to write off people who are offended by his position on immigration without trying to figure out how to win those people over.

Kregener
10-20-2007, 07:09 PM
Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This ain't rocket science...

antboy
10-20-2007, 07:35 PM
Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This ain't rocket science...

Agreed, it ai not. ;) Notice that it refers to citizens having certain privileges and immunities, but makes clear that all rights of life liberty, property, and due process belong to all persons within the jurisdiction of the state. Anyone reading that can see that all persons have the rights of life, liberty, property, and due process, and that citizenship relates to certain (unenumerated, because they can change) privileges and immunities granted only to citizens. I don't think we want to start arguing that life, liberty, and property are grants of privilege from the government that can be revoked by the government, do we? I have no trouble explaining Paul's position on citizenship. That doesn't address the rights of non-citizens effectively.

(BTW, Dr. Paul has proposed the revocation of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals. I trust we agree that would require a constitutional amendment and passage by the legislatures in 38 states).

ConstitutionGal
10-20-2007, 07:48 PM
Agreed, it ai not. ;) Notice that it refers to citizens having certain privileges and immunities, but makes clear that all rights of life liberty, property, and due process belong to all persons within the jurisdiction of the state. Anyone reading that can see that all persons have the rights of life, liberty, property, and due process, and that citizenship relates to certain (unenumerated, because they can change) privileges and immunities granted only to citizens. I don't think we want to start arguing that life, liberty, and property are grants of privilege from the government that can be revoked by the government, do we? I have no trouble explaining Paul's position on citizenship. That doesn't address the rights of non-citizens effectively.

(BTW, Dr. Paul has proposed the revocation of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals. I trust we agree that would require a constitutional amendment and passage by the legislatures in 38 states).
This would not require an constitutional amendment. The current belief that eveyone across the globe is somehow "and under the jurisdiction thereof" was a supreme court intrepretation of the original amendment which, BTW, was enacted to ensure citizenship status to the newly freed slaves after the civil war. The amendment exluded foreign dipomats and such on our soil. To my way of thinking, a constitutional amendment would be the way to go but legislation could have the same effect by simply clarifying original intent.

just FYI: the U. S. is the ONLY nation on the planet that grants birthright citizenship when neither parent of the offspring is a citizen. Some other nations used to do this but have wizened up and tightened up their requirments for citizenship. Until this can be changed here in the U.S. our borders must be secured to prevent further abuse of this particular supreme court ruling (legislating from the bench).

Something else to bear in mind - a nation is more than simply a geographic place on the globe - shared language, values, beliefs, etc., prevent balkanization and the breakups we have been witnessing across the globe during recent years. I would think that the cohesiveness of the U.S. is something worth preserving for our own posterity - something this nation's founders tried to ensure.

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 08:35 PM
This would not require an constitutional amendment. The current belief that eveyone across the globe is somehow "and under the jurisdiction thereof" was a supreme court intrepretation of the original amendment which, BTW, was enacted to ensure citizenship status to the newly freed slaves after the civil war. The amendment exluded foreign dipomats and such on our soil. To my way of thinking, a constitutional amendment would be the way to go but legislation could have the same effect by simply clarifying original intent.

just FYI: the U. S. is the ONLY nation on the planet that grants birthright citizenship when neither parent of the offspring is a citizen. Some other nations used to do this but have wizened up and tightened up their requirments for citizenship. Until this can be changed here in the U.S. our borders must be secured to prevent further abuse of this particular supreme court ruling (legislating from the bench).

Something else to bear in mind - a nation is more than simply a geographic place on the globe - shared language, values, beliefs, etc., prevent balkanization and the breakups we have been witnessing across the globe during recent years. I would think that the cohesiveness of the U.S. is something worth preserving for our own posterity - something this nation's founders tried to ensure.

The authors of the 14th amendment clearly had the foresight of what class of people to be excluded from the protection and rights of the amendment, since they created an exclusion class in section 2.

The United States is not the only country that grants jus soli. Argentina, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, India, Jamaica, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Spain and Venezuela do as well.

We digress though, this topic is about immigration/free movement, not naturalization. The Constitution is silent when it comes to free movement of individuals, the Supreme Court is the one that granted this plenary power. It opens up a can of worms if and whenever the SCOTUS decides to abandon this doctrine.

ConstitutionGal
10-20-2007, 08:52 PM
Maybe I should have said western industrialized nations.....

A lot of people see the current immigration treads as a sort of invasion and one fo the few powers granted to the fedgov is the protection of our nation against invasion. When we look at the aims of such groups as LULAC and MALDEF we see that the ultimate aim of the Hispanic lobby IS, in fact, a take-over of certain portions of our nation - I, along with many others, see this as an organized invasion with the ultimate goal of subversion of our nation. As has been proven time and time again, immigration begets immigration (both of the legal and illegal variety) which is why certain quotas were put in place limiting the numbers of legal immigrants to our nation (mainly to allow for assimilation). When the numbers are allowed to proceed unchecked, we wind up with balkanization to the detriment of our country and its cohesivness. Granted, congress turned some of the common sense approach to immigration on its head back in the 1960s (thank you Ted Kennedy) by opening the doors to third-world immigrants over those from countries that already shared our value system (and in many cases, our language). These reasons are what have so many American just about up in arms about the current fiasco with the illegals. Also, mass immigration has been proven to be detrimental to wages as immigrants will most always work for less than natives can. Just look at what's happening in the technical fields thanks to the increases in the H1 and L1 visas. Tech workers are being forced to TRAIN their foreign replacements in order to be able to collect their severence packages simply because the companies can save so much money by hiring visa holders! The same problems also exist in the lower-pay-scale jobs simply because the immigrants and illegals, many of whom are getting paid under the table or on stolen identies, can undercut the American workers. I work in the home construction industry and there is hardly a week goes by that some illegal doesn't stop in our office looking for work and they are VERY blatant about being ILLEGAL and then proceeding to tell us that it's okay because they have their brothers/uncles/friends, etc. SS # and insurance information!!! As a result of this, we are seeing entire sections our cities here in middle-TN turned into third-world countires while we foot the bills for the extra police, schools, etc. This is probably the ONLY issue that I'm not 100% in sync with Dr. Paul about but, I'm not a one-issue voter and I'll take agreeing with a candidate 98% of the time over agreeing with the rest of them less than 30% of the time. Of course, Dr. Paul does see the need to secure our borders and wants to end the birth-right citizenship nonsense (something that is a security risk as well as, IMHO, being just plain dumb) so I can't even say that he and I don't agree, at least, mostly even about this issue.

Kregener
10-20-2007, 09:08 PM
Again,


All persons born or naturalized in the United States

Are covered by our Constitution. People in Switzerland are not. And yes, people in Mexico are not. When they slip over the border, the are neither "born" or "naturalized", so they are invaders, which the same Constitution calls for the Militia to defend her against.

cjhowe
10-20-2007, 10:30 PM
Maybe I should have said western industrialized nations.....

A lot of people see the current immigration treads as a sort of invasion and one fo the few powers granted to the fedgov is the protection of our nation against invasion. When we look at the aims of such groups as LULAC and MALDEF we see that the ultimate aim of the Hispanic lobby IS, in fact, a take-over of certain portions of our nation - I, along with many others, see this as an organized invasion with the ultimate goal of subversion of our nation. As has been proven time and time again, immigration begets immigration (both of the legal and illegal variety) which is why certain quotas were put in place limiting the numbers of legal immigrants to our nation (mainly to allow for assimilation). When the numbers are allowed to proceed unchecked, we wind up with balkanization to the detriment of our country and its cohesivness. Granted, congress turned some of the common sense approach to immigration on its head back in the 1960s (thank you Ted Kennedy) by opening the doors to third-world immigrants over those from countries that already shared our value system (and in many cases, our language). These reasons are what have so many American just about up in arms about the current fiasco with the illegals. Also, mass immigration has been proven to be detrimental to wages as immigrants will most always work for less than natives can. Just look at what's happening in the technical fields thanks to the increases in the H1 and L1 visas. Tech workers are being forced to TRAIN their foreign replacements in order to be able to collect their severence packages simply because the companies can save so much money by hiring visa holders! The same problems also exist in the lower-pay-scale jobs simply because the immigrants and illegals, many of whom are getting paid under the table or on stolen identies, can undercut the American workers. I work in the home construction industry and there is hardly a week goes by that some illegal doesn't stop in our office looking for work and they are VERY blatant about being ILLEGAL and then proceeding to tell us that it's okay because they have their brothers/uncles/friends, etc. SS # and insurance information!!! As a result of this, we are seeing entire sections our cities here in middle-TN turned into third-world countires while we foot the bills for the extra police, schools, etc. This is probably the ONLY issue that I'm not 100% in sync with Dr. Paul about but, I'm not a one-issue voter and I'll take agreeing with a candidate 98% of the time over agreeing with the rest of them less than 30% of the time. Of course, Dr. Paul does see the need to secure our borders and wants to end the birth-right citizenship nonsense (something that is a security risk as well as, IMHO, being just plain dumb) so I can't even say that he and I don't agree, at least, mostly even about this issue.

Where though does the constitution speak of assimilation or visas?

KingTheoden
10-20-2007, 11:44 PM
Ant-

Dr. Paul has consistently stated that the best way to end the crisis is to end the incentives people have for coming into this country illegally. That means, no freebies and no 'special status' that leverages out the American worker. In fact, Dr. Paul has been more moderate compared to the anger-ridden Hunter-Tancredo contingent.

I disagree with the XIV Amendment because it made citizenship a civil matter, rather than a natural one. It implies, also, that the government grants rights.

However, Ant, you have to realize that perhaps .05% of the population is up on these intellectual nuances. Oprah doesn't talk about such matters so the average person will have no idea what we are talking about. If you want Ron Paul to win the nomination, he has to market himself a certain way.

Time is up; we have perhaps six weeks before New Hampshire and then it is game over. His radio ad is fantastic; it would be fatal if he endorsed an open border.

ConstitutionGal
10-21-2007, 04:29 AM
Where though does the constitution speak of assimilation or visas?
The Constitution 'speaks' of protecting us from invaders. If someone is not here with our permission then they are, by definition, an invader.

ConstitutionGal
10-21-2007, 04:33 AM
Ant-

Dr. Paul has consistently stated that the best way to end the crisis is to end the incentives people have for coming into this country illegally. That means, no freebies and no 'special status' that leverages out the American worker. In fact, Dr. Paul has been more moderate compared to the anger-ridden Hunter-Tancredo contingent.

I disagree with the XIV Amendment because it made citizenship a civil matter, rather than a natural one. It implies, also, that the government grants rights.

However, Ant, you have to realize that perhaps .05% of the population is up on these intellectual nuances. Oprah doesn't talk about such matters so the average person will have no idea what we are talking about. If you want Ron Paul to win the nomination, he has to market himself a certain way.

Time is up; we have perhaps six weeks before New Hampshire and then it is game over. His radio ad is fantastic; it would be fatal if he endorsed an open border.
Some things are not 'natural' rights and do fall under the perview of civil rights - the right to vote in election, the right to hold office the right of citizenship.

This is, I believe, one of the big issues that Dr. Paul splits with the Liberitarian Party about - border security.

A Nation without borders is not a nation at all - only a geographic place on the map.

Corydoras
10-21-2007, 04:58 AM
What is the perspective of the people you are trying to convert on this issue? What angle are they coming at it from? Not to put it as baldly as asking who they are, but, who are these people you are talking to who are raising this issue?

antboy
10-21-2007, 08:26 AM
Ant-

Dr. Paul has consistently stated that the best way to end the crisis is to end the incentives people have for coming into this country illegally. That means, no freebies and no 'special status' that leverages out the American worker. In fact, Dr. Paul has been more moderate compared to the anger-ridden Hunter-Tancredo contingent.

I disagree with the XIV Amendment because it made citizenship a civil matter, rather than a natural one. It implies, also, that the government grants rights.

However, Ant, you have to realize that perhaps .05% of the population is up on these intellectual nuances. Oprah doesn't talk about such matters so the average person will have no idea what we are talking about. If you want Ron Paul to win the nomination, he has to market himself a certain way.

Time is up; we have perhaps six weeks before New Hampshire and then it is game over. His radio ad is fantastic; it would be fatal if he endorsed an open border.

I wasn't suggesting that he run an ad for open borders, but running an ad that leads with a get tough stance on illegals will be no more helpful for him than the issue has been for Tancredo. Paul caught fire because of his position on foreign policy. You want my idea of a great ad?

"All the candidates say they support the troops. Ron Paul is the candidate that the troops support. Why are more members of the military contributing out of their own pocket to Ron Paul's campaign than to any other? Because he has served. Because he knows that the members of our military should not be asked to be the world's policeman, or to engage in nation building. Because he won't let them continue to die pointlessly in a war that was neither necessary, nor properly authorized, nor good for America. Because he wants to return us to a foreign policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship. Find out why Ron Paul is the candidate the troops support, by going to ronpaul2008.com."

Lead with his strongest position. Not one that he approaches with an unusual amount of vagueness.

Anyway, I was looking for ideas on answering these objections, and appreciate your thoughts on the topic.

nexalacer
10-21-2007, 08:45 AM
Unfortunately, the position he must adopt to win the Republican nomination is one that placates the anti-Mexican crowd. He's stated in one of his articles (I think, don't remember where I read it) that he'd be happy to have open borders if we lived in a free society, but with the welfare state we have, it's simply impossible.

As far as the constitutionality of it, that's difficult. Could it be attributed to the vague protection of the "general welfare"? Could it be as Kregener has said, a defense against invaders? I don't have the answer.

What I do know, is the destruction of the welfare state would give us so much more wealth and prosperity, there would be no need to worry about immigration. Even the anti-Mexicans among us would likely care much less if America wasn't so close to collapse as it is. The best argument you can make for this issue is the goal should be the destruction of the welfare state. I don't agree that stopping "illegal" immigration is necessary to destroy the welfare state, but it is a good way to keep the imminent collapse postponed a wee bit longer.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/070912_paul.htm I think this was the article I referred to about open borders...

Corydoras
10-21-2007, 08:48 AM
running an ad that leads with a get tough stance on illegals will be no more helpful for him than the issue has been for Tancredo. Paul caught fire because of his position on foreign policy.

This is a very good point.

antboy
10-21-2007, 09:16 AM
Unfortunately, the position he must adopt to win the Republican nomination is one that placates the anti-Mexican crowd. He's stated in one of his articles (I think, don't remember where I read it) that he'd be happy to have open borders if we lived in a free society, but with the welfare state we have, it's simply impossible.

As far as the constitutionality of it, that's difficult. Could it be attributed to the vague protection of the "general welfare"? Could it be as Kregener has said, a defense against invaders? I don't have the answer.

What I do know, is the destruction of the welfare state would give us so much more wealth and prosperity, there would be no need to worry about immigration. Even the anti-Mexicans among us would likely care much less if America wasn't so close to collapse as it is. The best argument you can make for this issue is the goal should be the destruction of the welfare state. I don't agree that stopping "illegal" immigration is necessary to destroy the welfare state, but it is a good way to keep the imminent collapse postponed a wee bit longer.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/070912_paul.htm I think this was the article I referred to about open borders...

Thanks: this is a very helpful response and link.

antboy
10-21-2007, 09:46 AM
What is the perspective of the people you are trying to convert on this issue? What angle are they coming at it from? Not to put it as baldly as asking who they are, but, who are these people you are talking to who are raising this issue?

I am a personal financial advisor, and have many clients who are wealthy liberals (also conservative clients, but getting them on the Paul side is a cinch unless they are among the handful who still think the Iraq War is a good idea). I get very involved with my clients, and have discussed politics over the years, building a strong rapport and having influence on the views of some of them (and no influence at all with others: win some, lose some). They all know I'm a libertarian (as I said, I voted for Paul 20 years ago, before most of the people in this campaign ever heard of him). Also, these are all Internet-savvy people, and the ones I'm having trouble converting are the ones who have gone to the ronpaul2008.com site, where the very first item on the list of issues is border security and immigration reform, and the summary quote is about securing our borders. If they click through, there are many tough statements about cracking down on illegals. First impressions are hard to correct, but I'm trying.

So I'm talking about antiwar liberals with lots of money who were initially attracted by his antiwar position but have gotten the impression from the Paul site that he is another Pat Buchanan, and who don't think that is a good thing. I want to get Paul $4,600 from each of them, not to mention the possible contacts THEY have in their circle of friends.

I also have a lot of friends and acquaintances with less money but more time for activism that fit the profile. And I'm willing to wager that 80% of the viewership of the Daily Show has the same potential and obstacle I described in the first message.

These people shouldn't be written off, and I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that Paul should run a campaign that is only geared toward Republicans, especially given all the evidence that non-Republican support has been a key driving force behind his Internet, campus, and financial success to date.

Anyway, I've gotten some ideas from this thread along with the criticism. I hope you have modified your view about who I'm trying to elect, but in the scheme of things, it's no big deal what you think of me.

Corydoras
10-21-2007, 11:46 AM
These people shouldn't be written off, and I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that Paul should run a campaign that is only geared toward Republicans, especially given all the evidence that non-Republican support has been a key driving force behind his Internet, campus, and financial success to date.

I agree that those are valuable people you are trying to cultivate, but I am not sure how much it is possible to cultivate them. Ron Paul has run as a Republican in a border state for twenty years, and that's where his bed is made. It's part of the deal that goes with being a candidate who has to pick between the two ends of the republicrats.

If they accept his points about getting out of NAFTA and the WTO, can they see his immigration position as consistent with a general strategy of increasing national sovereignty?



I hope you have modified your view about who I'm trying to elect, but in the scheme of things, it's no big deal what you think of me.

Yes, I have. But it's not what I think of you, it's about coming out of left field metaphorically in two ways. Identifying your intended audience would have helped a lot, including helping shape the responses. And you know we've had a lot of trolls, and we know that people who don't support Ron Paul are wandering around here. So please understand in the best way my suspicions in the larger picture of the forum.

antboy
10-21-2007, 09:36 PM
[QUOTE=Corydoras;295872]I agree that those are valuable people you are trying to cultivate, but I am not sure how much it is possible to cultivate them.

Well, I'm not ready to give up on them, because I think they're needed for him to be elected president, and because I've had some success with liberals already (as has the campaign).

I've probably gotten all the help I can expect from this forum: thanks to those offering some ideas on addressing the issue.

Man from La Mancha
10-21-2007, 09:48 PM
Over 3/4 of people are against illegal immigration. Even the majority of American Hispanics are against it. Just like the war, those are good selling points of Ron's to show right away.

.

Sergeant Brother
10-22-2007, 06:11 PM
From a purely political perspective, Ron Paul's stance against illegal immigration is an asset to him. Most of the other Republicans with a good chance of winning have shown themselves to be pretty bad in terms of opposing illegal immigration and I have no doubt that some of Paul's support is coming from those people. I would also wager to guess that when Hunter and Tancredo drop out that Ron Paul will benefit even more from his position on immigration.

If he were offer amnesty or completely open borders, it may well get him a few extra votes or a few more supporters, but it will be far more damaging to his campaign, particularly his attempt to get the Republican nomination. I am sure that many of his Republican supporters would feel worse about voting for Paul if he weren't strong against illegal immigration, particularly those who aren't as familiar with some of his more obscure issues like the Gold Standard.

Personally, I think that border security is the most important issue to me. And if Ron Paul were to push for open borders or amnesty I doubt I would back him as strongly as I do now.

katao
10-22-2007, 06:42 PM
I wasn't suggesting that he run an ad for open borders, but running an ad that leads with a get tough stance on illegals will be no more helpful for him than the issue has been for Tancredo. Paul caught fire because of his position on foreign policy. You want my idea of a great ad?

"All the candidates say they support the troops. Ron Paul is the candidate that the troops support. Why are more members of the military contributing out of their own pocket to Ron Paul's campaign than to any other? Because he has served. Because he knows that the members of our military should not be asked to be the world's policeman, or to engage in nation building. Because he won't let them continue to die pointlessly in a war that was neither necessary, nor properly authorized, nor good for America. Because he wants to return us to a foreign policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship. Find out why Ron Paul is the candidate the troops support, by going to ronpaul2008.com."

Lead with his strongest position. Not one that he approaches with an unusual amount of vagueness.

Anyway, I was looking for ideas on answering these objections, and appreciate your thoughts on the topic.

I like your alternative ad - it is very good! Produce it and all of us can put it on the air!

That said, you're making way too much of this issue. If Ron was desperate to get libertarian voters (I count myself one of those), perhaps you would be correct. But he is trying to win support from mainstream Republicans, which very much were opposed to the Amnesty bill.

Luckily for us libertarians (as well as for our democratic supporters), Ron Paul gets it! He doesn't want to end illegal immigration for Protectionist reasons like Hunter or for racial/cultural reasons like Tancredo. (Or like Buchanan who does it for both Protectionist and racial/cultural reasons!) He does it to protect our national sovereignty and to preserve the rule of law. He sees immigrants as scapegoats for our failed policies, and rightly blames the policies not the immigrants. As soon as the borders are secured and the economy improves, Ron Paul would welcome large numbers of immigrants to enable nearly free trade of labor.

Most important, we don't have time to be debating this. We are the rEVOLution, not the campaign. It is a free market of ideas in spreading the Freedom message, so go crazy proving that your ideas can better win supporters! Go make your great ad and lets get it on the air!

nexalacer
10-23-2007, 12:49 AM
Luckily for us libertarians (as well as for our democratic supporters), Ron Paul gets it! He doesn't want to end illegal immigration for Protectionist reasons like Hunter or for racial/cultural reasons like Tancredo. (Or like Buchanan who does it for both Protectionist and racial/cultural reasons!) He does it to protect our national sovereignty and to preserve the rule of law. He sees immigrants as scapegoats for our failed policies, and rightly blames the policies not the immigrants. As soon as the borders are secured and the economy improves, Ron Paul would welcome large numbers of immigrants to enable nearly free trade of labor.


This is a great post and a great point! Kudos!

antboy
10-23-2007, 05:38 AM
I like your alternative ad - it is very good! Produce it and all of us can put it on the air!


I submitted the copy to the campaign: we'll see if they like it. This thread was a useful lesson to me. I'm heading back to the antiwar jungle to bag a few more rich liberals for contributions and to build the base needed to win the general election. You keep going after the mainstream Republicans. It takes both to win in November 2008.