John Derbyshire won't be supporting Ron Paul?

[Inkblots]

From this week's Radio Derb:


How about today? Well, if voting for Ron Paul seemed a bit quixotic three years ago, it looks much less so now. He is the only candidate who's spoken out consistently, for years now — for decades — against wanton government spending. He's the only candidate asking why we still have 50,000 troops in Iraq eight years on, 28,000 in Korea 58 years on, and 52,000 in Germany 66 years on. He's the only one asking why we have a government agency empowered to buy bonds issued by another government agency when no-one else wants them. He's the only one asking why, in a lush and fertile nation with the world's most advanced agricultural technology, 43 million citizens are on food stamps; or why we have surrendered so much of our national autonomy to international organizations; or why we need a federal Department of Education; or how the Commerce Clause ever got interpreted so widely as to allow the feds to do anything they feel like doing; or why we are paying ballooning costs for a health-care system that, by first world standards, isn't very good.

In short, Paul asks the questions I ask here on Radio Derb. He wants to return us to our tradition of individual liberty, self-support, and frugal, minimal government adhering strictly to the Constitution. Why anyone would be against those things, I don't understand. I'm for them.

On the National Question, however, Paul seems to have slid back into classic libertarian one-worldism. In his latest book, Liberty Defined, his comments on National Question issues seem to be trying for the Newt Gingrich Hispandering award. Key quote:

"Many claim that illegal immigrants take American jobs. This is true, but most of the jobs they "take" are the ones unemployed Americans refuse at the wage offered."

There you see libertarian loopiness naked and proud. The proper wage for any kind of job is the wage that someone, somewhere in the world, will accept. A goatherd from Ethiopia, a paddy farmer from Vietnam, a North Korean refugee — let's bid down all labor to the lowest possible level.

Now, I don't say there may not be a sort of Aristotelian case for this on the basis of ethereal pure reason, but I do say, and I defy you to contradict me, that if you go out on the campaign trail with that as one of you platform planks, you won't be getting votes from too many working Americans.

So I'm disappointed in Dr. Paul. After all these years saying so many of the right things, things that are just now dawning on large sections of the American public, here he is recycling all the most threadbare clichés of the open borders nitwits. It's a shame. I was gearing up to vote for the guy again. Oh well; we still have Michele Bachmann.
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2011-04-29.html

This is frustrating. Derbyshire obviously knows Ron Paul is right on the important issues. He even says later on, when speaking about Bernanke at the Fed news conference, "He sounded like the Puerto Rican janitor: 'Eez not my yob.' He left us all wondering why we need him. Perhaps Ron Paul's right: we don't."

It's not as if Ron doesn't believe in the importance of national sovereignty, or thinks that illegal immigration is acceptable. But even acknowledging that illegal immigrants come here in response to a real demand for labor is enough to lose immigration restrictionists' votes? Give me a break.

[Sola_Fide]

Oh come on....

It's like these people are just TRYING to find a reasn not to support Ron...

[freshjiva]

I think he misunderstood Paul's positions on immigration. On yesterday's Stossel segment, Ron clarified that he is opposed to truly open borders because of the tremendous pressure it would put on American taxpayers to sustain the costs of education and welfare programs.

[KramerDSP]

I'm getting majorly pissed off. The highs and the lows from 2012 will make 2008 feel minor in comparison.

[Guitarzan]

Derb's a good guy...he sometimes says things that'll piss you off. In the end, I think he'll be with Ron.

[trey4sports]

Who?

This is a no-name guy, who has little pull in nat'l politics.

[MRoCkEd]

Derby-fail. Dude is a decent paleocon. He's wrong on some issues like this, but I expected better of him than to write off Ron over it.

[Cowlesy]

Derb supports Ron. Think maybe some wires are crossed.

He posted this yesterday at Takimag.com

http://takimag.com/article/2012_election_preview


The politicians are beginning to shuffle into place for next year’s presidential contest. (Or out of place: Haley Barbour announced this week that he won’t try for the Republican nomination.) So whom do we have?

We have Barack Obama. I see no sign that anyone in his own party will challenge him. This might change. This time next year, with unemployment at fifty percent, the dollar trading at par with the Laotian kip, and Chinese landing craft coming ashore on Guam, things might be different, but let’s go with what we currently have.

The field to ponder is therefore the GOP presidential field. Herewith some notes:

The National Question. I don’t want to end up having to vote for a candidate who is squishy on the National Question. This primarily involves matters of immigration, citizenship, and border control, but also issues relating to national cohesion—race preferences, multiculturalism, and maintaining English as our single national language.

“Given that the USA will almost certainly face a humongous economic catastrophe in the next five years, who would best be able to cope with it?”Taking immigration policy as the main index here, it looks as if I’m out of luck. None of the 2012 hopefuls rated by NumbersUSA gets better than a B-minus on immigration, and the median there is a D.

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson hasn’t made it to the NumbersUSA list yet (he only declared last week), but to judge by his National Review interview, he’s an immigration dim bulb who thinks the main problem is that it’s too hard for foreigners to get work visas and that “it’s not a matter of welfare.” (Oh, no?)

If you throw in borderline categories such as crew members in transit (D visa), religious workers (R), foreign nationals’ domestic staff (B-1), media and journalist folk (I), and some others, the count goes over twenty…but let’s settle on those thirteen existing guest-worker visas. What about this list does not make sense?

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who hasn’t declared but might yet run, is just as clueless. We need “a path to citizenship,” he says. Yo, Governor: We already have one. I trod it.

Donald Trump throws his hair in the ring. Trump’s come in for a lot of mockery since he announced his run. I just saw Charles Krauthammer sneering at him on the O’Reilly show. “Not a serious candidate….”

When you look at how we’ve been served by people whom Krauthammer presumably considered to have been serious candidates, this doesn’t seem like much of an argument.

There was, for example, the guy who got us into two pointless, endless wars, vastly expanded Medicare when it was already clear entitlements were going to bankrupt us, threw the nation’s borders wide open, and passed the silliest piece of social legislation in the republic’s history. Was he a serious candidate? I don’t recall Krauthammer saying otherwise.

Was Barack Obama a serious candidate in ‘08, with his lengthy and challenging experience of [sound of crickets chirping] and his striking achievements in the field of [more crickets]?

Coping with catastrophe. Given that the USA will almost certainly face a humongous economic catastrophe in the next five years, who would best be able to cope with it?

I’m not sure this is an answerable question. Told in 1928 that there was an economic catastrophe on the horizon and then asked which public figure would best handle it, a high proportion of Americans pointed to the brilliant, industrious, experienced, omni-capable, and definitely very serious Herbert Hoover, the most respected man in public life at the time. (One of the few dissenters was the unfoxable Calvin Coolidge, who called Hoover “Wonder Boy.”)

But if Hoover was overwhelmed by the Great Depression, so was FDR, whose policies did very little to ameliorate it. Perhaps when disasters of this magnitude strike, there is nothing anyone can do but flail about ineffectually.

Mitt Romney. Dear old Mitt. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

Tim Pawlenty. The ex-Governor of Minnesota is an honest working-class lad who ran a good tight ship but is off-putting in a number of ways. There’s that “Tim” for starters. George Orwell, née Eric Blair, once said it took him thirty years to get over being named “Eric.” It might take me at least that long to get used to “President Tim.” There’s that Midwestern niceness, too. Midwesterners are so damn nice, it’s impossible to dislike them. I like them immensely—real Americans, the salt of the earth. But do I want my nation’s affairs in the hands of someone that nice? I’m not sure I do.

Then there’s the evangelical thing. Certainly a man’s entitled to his religion, and on social and fiscal matters the evangelical heart is in the right place. But the evangelical temperament seems inimical to sensible foreign policy. Michael Brendan Dougherty hints at this in the current (June 2011) issue of The American Conservative:

Asked about the multiplication of American obligations around the world, [Dr. Richard] Land [of the Southern Baptist Convention] quotes the Gospel coolly: “To whom much has been given, much shall be required.” America is a blessed nation and must be a blessing to others.

Uh-oh. Similarly for Huckabee, Palin, and Bachmann.
Pawlenty and Bachmann, however, are up at the top of the NumbersUSA rankings on immigration policy, so perhaps they recognize some limits to the sacrifices Americans should be forced to make on the heathen’s behalf.

Newt Gingrich. I find it really, really hard to imagine myself pulling the lever for Barack Obama, but…not impossible.

Ron Paul‘s in. Well, at least to the extent of having formed an “exploratory committee” this past Tuesday.

This is great news—a candidate worth voting for. Paul would eliminate some of the myriad federal agencies, perhaps even entire departments. He is the only candidate who has ever openly questioned why we keep 52,000 troops in Germany and 36,000 in Japan, or why our government has one agency (the Federal Reserve) empowered to buy bonds issued by another (the US Treasury), or why my income is any of the government’s business.

Paul is a libertarian and therefore suspect on the National Question. He seems more sensible than most of that ilk, though, at least to judge by the interview he gave to VDARE in the 2008 election. Sure, he’s old, but not as old as Konrad Adenauer.

Paul is my guy, though I should brace myself for the flood of angry stories about how his dentist’s cousin’s babysitter once sat on a park bench next to a member of the John Birch Society.


Edit: The Radio Derb was posted today, so, who knows. I think he just needs some clarification that Ron is not for open borders.

[FrankRep]

On the National Question, however, Paul seems to have slid back into classic libertarian one-worldism. In his latest book, Liberty Defined, his comments on National Question issues seem to be trying for the Newt Gingrich Hispandering award. Key quote:


"Many claim that illegal immigrants take American jobs. This is true, but most of the jobs they "take" are the ones unemployed Americans refuse at the wage offered."

I hope Ron Paul doesn't forget that the Conservatives put him in office.

Watch out about rejecting-DADT, supporting the Ground Zero Mosque, and getting sympathetic with the Illegal Immigrants.

[Brett85]

I've been concerned about Ron's position on immigration and the abortion issue as well. I voted for him in 2008 thinking that he was at least conservative on these two issues, but I think I'm going to send an email to his campaign asking for clarification. On Stossel last night he clearly said that he was opposed to building a fence or a "wall" along the border. If that's the case, how exactly would Ron propose securing our borders? Would he put our military along the border? In the Stossel interview he also wouldn't answer his question about whether abortion should be banned. He actually said that "the federal government shouldn't be involved," which IS NOT a pro life position in my opinion. A constitutional amendment banning abortion would be proper since that's the appropriate way to change the Constitution. Ron should at least push for that if he's going to claim to be pro life. I only vote for pro life politicians, so this is a big issue to me. Those are just two concerns I have.

[Guitarzan]

I hope Ron Paul doesn't forget that the Conservatives put him in office.

Watch out about rejecting-DADT, supporting the Ground Zero Mosque, and getting sympathetic with the Illegal Immigrants.


And libertarians made him famous. Reject DADT, support the property rights of a free people, and be sympathetic to the freedom to travel in order to enhance one's life.

[Brett85]

And libertarians made him famous. Reject DADT, support the property rights of a free people, and be sympathetic to the freedom to travel in order to enhance one's life.

You're the same as the globalists who want a one world government.

[Guitarzan]

You're the same as the globalists who want a one world government.


[Removed]

[sailingaway]

He might just be trying to pressure Ron to clarify it and come out on that point.

[Cowlesy]

Keep it civil folks.

[South Park Fan]

So Ron Paul is the only candidate to espouse economic sanity, but this guy can't support him because he espouses economic sanity. Why is there outrage when people support price supports on consumer goods but not labor?

[Cowlesy]

So Ron Paul is the only candidate to espouse economic sanity, but this guy can't support him because he espouses economic sanity. Why is there outrage when people support price supports on consumer goods but not labor?

Some people don't believe that the opportunities found in the United States should be made available to every individual on planet earth, and especially so when we have such a massive entitlement system sucking the earnings from the productive members of society.

We can't save the entire world by letting everyone show up here, unfortunately.

[Guitarzan]

Ya...ok. Sorry for calling the guy who wants Ron Paul to advocate building walls around this country to keep out those darn illegals a name that I thought fit appropriately.

I'll just leave at this. He's incorrect.

[South Park Fan]

Some people don't believe that the opportunities found in the United States should be made available to every individual on planet earth, and especially so when we have such a massive entitlement system sucking the earnings from the productive members of society.

We can't save the entire world by letting everyone show up here, unfortunately.

You might want to look at that quote again:
"Many claim that illegal immigrants take American jobs. This is true, but most of the jobs they "take" are the ones unemployed Americans refuse at the wage offered."
Nowhere in there does Ron Paul suggest that immigrants should be swept in here. All Ron Paul is doing is countering the economic nationalists by pointing out that artificial price supports on wages drives the demand for illegal immigration. If we are to accept the argument of the economic nationalists, then this ought to extend into the consumer sector as well. If Company A comes out with a product that is cheaper than that provided by Company B, would you say that Company A is "taking Company B jobs"?

[emazur]

I've been concerned about Ron's position on immigration and the abortion issue as well. I voted for him in 2008 thinking that he was at least conservative on these two issues, but I think I'm going to send an email to his campaign asking for clarification. On Stossel last night he clearly said that he was opposed to building a fence or a "wall" along the border. If that's the case, how exactly would Ron propose securing our borders? Would he put our military along the border? In the Stossel interview he also wouldn't answer his question about whether abortion should be banned. He actually said that "the federal government shouldn't be involved," which IS NOT a pro life position in my opinion. A constitutional amendment banning abortion would be proper since that's the appropriate way to change the Constitution. Ron should at least push for that if he's going to claim to be pro life. I only vote for pro life politicians, so this is a big issue to me. Those are just two concerns I have.

I haven't read the book yet, but according to this unofficial site (blocked quotes are Paul's words):
http://libertydefined.org/issue/1

My argument is that the abortion problem is more of a social and moral issue than it is a legal one.

Laws alone do not change society, they are a reflection of society at that time; he recalls abortions were done at his residency in the 1960s in opposition to the law.


So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn't be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice.

The more difficult the problem, the more local the solution. One-size-fits-all answers in cases as personal as these are impractical.

He's right - the law is not the answer to abortion. Creating a society with a healthy economy that encourages individual responsibility is. You can vote for someone other than Paul who claims (http://prolifeprofiles.com/palin) to be tougher on abortion if you want, but like Peter Schiff says (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDttx64zk4I) - people keep voting for pro-lifers but nothing ever changes. Even if there was a change, it would only be temporary.

Here's another one written by Paul in '06:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.

This article is worth reading:
The Pro-Life Assault on Ron Paul and the Constitution (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance194.html)
so is this:
Is Ron Paul Wrong on Abortion? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance133.html)

Think walls and fences will solve illegal immigration? Think again:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmpDbM1YDWg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHjKBjM1ngw&feature=player_embedded

my motto: "If you want to keep them out, kick it out!" [it = the welfare state]
That's what Paul wants to do, and I support him. (While we're on the subject, Wayne Allyn Root has an excellent plan on how to bring in the good kind of immigration - the kind that brings investment and increases economic activity. It's in his book "Conscience of a Libertarian", but I can try to find clips of him talking about it upon request)

[angelatc]

Derb supports Ron. Think maybe some wires are crossed.

He posted this yesterday at Takimag.com

http://takimag.com/article/2012_election_preview



Edit: The Radio Derb was posted today, so, who knows. I think he just needs some clarification that Ron is not for open borders.

Let's each email him 40 times!!!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

How did America ever survive with open borders for its first 150 years. Good golly' almighty. If you don't want immigrants on your property, fine. If you use force to keep me from allowing who I want on my property -- you can't say you are for private property. State-borders are incompatible with private property.

It is funny though, how the Nationalists never want to impose tariffs, and closed borders on neighboring States. They must really love those liberals from California, New York, or Washington.

[FrankRep]

How did America ever survive with open borders for its first 150 years. Good golly' almighty.


Founding Fathers Were Immigration Skeptics (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21626)


Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
July 20, 2007


The American people continue to be involved in a long-overdue national discussion of immigration. And yet, during the debate over the immigration bill that recently died in the Senate, I do not recall hearing the views of the Founding Fathers -- even if only out of curiosity -- considered, pursued or even raised.

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.”

Alexander Hamilton was even more blunt. He invited his fellow Americans to consider the example of another people who had been more generous with their immigration policy than prudence dictated: the American Indians. Hamilton wrote, “Prudence requires us to trace the history further and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy, and who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited? Perhaps a lesson is here taught which ought not to be despised.”

Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” He then drew out the implications of this point: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

George Washington contended in a 1794 letter to John Adams that there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration, “except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.” He continued: “The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”

Rufus King, a Massachusetts delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote in 1798 that emigrants from Scotland had typically brought with them certificates from “the religious societies to which they belonged” that testified to their good character. King proposed that something similar be required of all those wishing to settle here.

And the list goes on.

The problem here is not that the question -- “Did the Founding Fathers support immigration?” -- is usually answered incorrectly or badly. The problem is that it is never raised in the first place. (That’s why it’s the very first entry in my new book, 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask.)

The Founding Fathers were not infallible, of course, and they were sometimes wrong. But on a matter as critical as this one, shouldn’t we at least be aware of what they thought?

[nate895]

I haven't read the book yet, but according to this unofficial site (blocked quotes are Paul's words):
http://libertydefined.org/issue/1


Laws alone do not change society, they are a reflection of society at that time; he recalls abortions were done at his residency in the 1960s in opposition to the law.


The more difficult the problem, the more local the solution. One-size-fits-all answers in cases as personal as these are impractical.

He's right - the law is not the answer to abortion. Creating a society with a healthy economy that encourages individual responsibility is. You can vote for someone other than Paul who claims (http://prolifeprofiles.com/palin) to be tougher on abortion if you want, but like Peter Schiff says (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDttx64zk4I) - people keep voting for pro-lifers but nothing ever changes. Even if there was a change, it would only be temporary.



The idea that the law cannot limit immoral behavior is patently absurd. The law obviously can limit the amount and change the type of immoral behavior people participate in. For instance, in the case of abortion, people are taught because of the law that pre-natal children are less human because they do not have all the legal protections of a full-born human. If the law changed so that pre-natal children had the full protection of the law, then people would have to be willing to resist the law as it stood.

As far as Ron Paul's position on abortion, I think he is unquestionably pro-life. However, I think he is also unquestionably inconsistent on it. He makes arguments against abortion that should compel one to accept that abortion must be unlawful everywhere, and that any state that did not enforce anti-abortion laws is guilty of violating the equal protection clause and the basic principles of republican government.

The only argument in favor of Ron Paul's position boils down to mere pragmatism: Not every state will enforce a ban on abortion; therefore, we should just allow some states to not enforce abortion laws. I think the premise is true, for the time being at least. However, if some states are unwilling to enforce abortion bans in their state in the near future, then I think that would just be one of many reasons to dissolve the Union. If I had my druthers, I would not confederate with states that allowed abortion. It violates the most basic purpose of the civil government: To protect life.

[Brett85]

We need to secure our borders using whatever means necessary. A fence is probably better than nothing, but using our military to secure both of our borders would probably be the best option. We need to close down all of our foreign military bases and use our troops to defend our own borders. The reasons why we need to do this are numerous.

1) It's a huge national security issue. 13 of the 16 hijackers on 9-11 were here illegally. The way to keep ourselves safe from terrorism isn't to "fight them over there." It's to keep them from coming into our country in the first place, which means securing our borders and reforming our VISA system.

2) People who come here illegally take advantage of our welfare system, costing taxpayers billions of dollars each year. Since the welfare state isn't going to end any time soon, we must stop illegal immigration and also make sure that legal immigration isn't unlimited.

3) Open borders and illegal immigration takes away from our national sovereignty, effectively creating a North American Union with Canada and Mexico. Anybody who's a non globalist should be opposed to a North American Union and one world government. Our sovereignty as a country depends on making sure that we actually have a country. Without borders you don't even have a country. You could simply call us the Canadian United States of Mexico.

[Brett85]

The idea that the law cannot limit immoral behavior is patently absurd. The law obviously can limit the amount and change the type of immoral behavior people participate in. For instance, in the case of abortion, people are taught because of the law that pre-natal children are less human because they do not have all the legal protections of a full-born human. If the law changed so that pre-natal children had the full protection of the law, then people would have to be willing to resist the law as it stood.

As far as Ron Paul's position on abortion, I think he is unquestionably pro-life. However, I think he is also unquestionably inconsistent on it. He makes arguments against abortion that should compel one to accept that abortion must be unlawful everywhere, and that any state that did not enforce anti-abortion laws is guilty of violating the equal protection clause and the basic principles of republican government.

The only argument in favor of Ron Paul's position boils down to mere pragmatism: Not every state will enforce a ban on abortion; therefore, we should just allow some states to not enforce abortion laws. I think the premise is true, for the time being at least. However, if some states are unwilling to enforce abortion bans in their state in the near future, then I think that would just be one of many reasons to dissolve the Union. If I had my druthers, I would not confederate with states that allowed abortion. It violates the most basic purpose of the civil government: To protect life.

I agree completely.

[nate895]

We need to secure our borders using whatever means necessary. A fence is probably better than nothing, but using our military to secure both of our borders would probably be the best option. We need to close down all of our foreign military bases and use our troops to defend our own borders. The reasons why we need to do this are numerous.

1) It's a huge national security issue. 13 of the 16 hijackers on 9-11 were here illegally. The way to keep ourselves safe from terrorism isn't to "fight them over there." It's to keep them from coming into our country in the first place, which means securing our borders and reforming our VISA system.

2) People who come here illegally take advantage of our welfare system, costing taxpayers billions of dollars each year. Since the welfare state isn't going to end any time soon, we must stop illegal immigration and also make sure that legal immigration isn't unlimited.

3) Open borders and illegal immigration takes away from our national sovereignty, effectively creating a North American Union with Canada and Mexico. Anybody who's a non globalist should be opposed to a North American Union and one world government. Our sovereignty as a country depends on making sure that we actually have a country. Without borders you don't even have a country. You could simply call us the Canadian United States of Mexico.

Or we could just open our border a bit so that people would not seek to come here illegally. We should be welcoming of foreigners, so long as they (referring to individuals) don't make themselves unwelcome. We need to open our immigration, abolish most business regulations, and be willing to work for a free and fair market wage. If we do not do those things, then we'll be forced to militarize our borders as you are suggesting. That doesn't exactly say "Welcome to the United States, land of the free" all over it.

[Brett85]

"My argument is that the abortion problem is more of a social and moral issue than it is a legal one."

If that's his position then I completly disagree with it. That's the same exact argument pro choice Democrats make when they argue to keep abortion legal. People who are legitimately pro life have one simple goal; they support banning abortion. I can understand Ron's position if he simply believes that a federal law banning abortion would be unconstitutional, but a Constitutional amendment banning abortion would be acceptable. That would actually be a pro life position that I could accept. But really, I haven't ever even heard Ron say that abortion should be banned at the state level. I thought that was his actual position. I've seen a lot of threads on these forums where people were actually arguing over whether Ron is pro life or pro choice. If Ron actually took an unequivocal stance on the abortion issue, there would be no debate on what his position is. The fact is that his comments on the abortion issue have been very wishy washy.

[Brett85]

Or we could just open our border a bit so that people would not seek to come here illegally. We should be welcoming of foreigners, so long as they (referring to individuals) don't make themselves unwelcome. We need to open our immigration, abolish most business regulations, and be willing to work for a free and fair market wage. If we do not do those things, then we'll be forced to militarize our borders as you are suggesting. That doesn't exactly say "Welcome to the United States, land of the free" all over it.

We already allow over 1 million people to come here legally each year. Is one million people really not enough? I never said that we should cut off all legal immigration, but there has to be a limit to it. We simply can't afford to import the entire country of Mexico into the United States. That would dramatically change our culture and our country, and it would create over population problems in the United States. As Frank Rep pointed out earlier, many of our founders were opposed to unlimited immigration. They believed that people should be allowed to come here legally, but they realized that unlimited immigration would be damaging to the United States in the long run.

[nate895]

"My argument is that the abortion problem is more of a social and moral issue than it is a legal one."

If that's his position then I completly disagree with it. That's the same exact argument pro choice Democrats make when they argue to keep abortion legal. People who are legitimately pro life have one simple goal; they support banning abortion. I can understand Ron's position if he simply believes that a federal law banning abortion would be unconstitutional, but a Constitutional amendment banning abortion would be acceptable. That would actually be a pro life position that I could accept. But really, I haven't ever even heard Ron say that abortion should be banned at the state level. I thought that was his actual position. I've seen a lot of threads on these forums where people were actually arguing over whether Ron is pro life or pro choice. If Ron actually took an unequivocal stance on the abortion issue, there would be no debate on what his position is. The fact is that his comments on the abortion issue have been very wishy washy.

I'm pretty certain he supports state bans. His "Sanctity of Life Act" is designed for that purpose. However, he has not reintroduced that bill in the new Congress as he usually does. I don't know why. If his position has morphed on it, I'm out. I hope and pray to God it hasn't.

[Brett85]

I'm pretty certain he supports state bans. His "Sanctity of Life Act" is designed for that purpose. However, he has not reintroduced that bill in the new Congress as he usually does. I don't know why. If his position has morphed on it, I'm out. I hope and pray to God it hasn't.

Perhaps you're right. I don't know. It just seems like he presents a watered down message on the issue whenever he speaks to either liberal or libertarian crowds. When he speaks to conservative groups he seems to take more of a solid pro life stance.

[nate895]

We already allow over 1 million people to come here legally each year. Is one million people really not enough? I never said that we should cut off all legal immigration, but there has to be a limit to it. We simply can't afford to import the entire country of Mexico into the United States. That would dramatically change our culture and our country, and it would create over population problems in the United States. As Frank Rep pointed out earlier, many of our founders were opposed to unlimited immigration. They believed that people should be allowed to come here legally, but they realized that unlimited immigration would be damaging to the United States in the long run.

We don't have to. What we have to do is allow for free and fair markets to open up. The United States would not provide all the jobs on a global market. However, I will say this, I do not think we should necessarily grant citizenship to that many newcomers. I just think we should expand how many people we let into the country on permanent and temporary work visas.

[emazur]

Fixed?

The idea that the law cannot limit immoral behavior is patently absurd. The law obviously can limit the amount and change the type of immoral behavior people participate in. For instance, in the case of drugs, people are taught because of the law that drug users are committing an illegal act that goes against the best interest of themselves and society. If the law changed so that people have the full protection of the law to do whatever drugs they want, then society would go to hell in a handbasket


As far as Ron Paul's position on abortion, I think he is unquestionably pro-life. However, I think he is also unquestionably inconsistent on it. He makes arguments against abortion that should compel one to accept that abortion must be unlawful everywhere, and that any state that did not enforce anti-abortion laws is guilty of violating the equal protection clause and the basic principles of republican government.

He can think abortion is immoral while acknowledging that laws, no matter where they're passed, will not be an effective deterrent. Just like drugs - he opposes them but doesn't want anti-drug laws. The states could try regulate either if the federal govt. did not, but they would also fail. State laws to outlaw abortion probably wouldn't even get off the ground (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance133.html):

It is unlikely that most states would enact a complete ban on abortions. In 2006, a comprehensive ban was put to the voters in South Dakota by means of referendum. The referendum failed in what is one of the most conservative states in the Union.

This is what happens when abortion is outlawed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmoqc2KUt84

[Inkblots]

In the Stossel interview he also wouldn't answer his question about whether abortion should be banned. He actually said that "the federal government shouldn't be involved," which IS NOT a pro life position in my opinion. A constitutional amendment banning abortion would be proper since that's the appropriate way to change the Constitution. Ron should at least push for that if he's going to claim to be pro life. I only vote for pro life politicians, so this is a big issue to me. Those are just two concerns I have.

Traditional Conservative, as a 100% pro-life Catholic, let me assure you that Ron Paul is the most consistently pro-life national politician of whom I am aware. Please read this excerpt from Liberty Defined, in which Dr. Paul makes his views very clear: http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/26/rep-ron-paul-announces-his-presidential-exploratory-committee-writes-about-abortion/

Here is the most relevant portion to your policy concerns:

It is now widely accepted that there’s a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing
about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence.

There are only four crimes listed in the Constitution: counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.

It’s a giant leap for the federal courts to declare abortion a constitutional right and overrule all state laws regulating the procedure. If anything, the federal government has a responsibility to protect life—not grant permission to destroy it.

If a state were to legalize infanticide, it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government, which is required by the Constitution.

...

Removing jurisdiction from the federal courts can be done with a majority vote in the Congress and the signature of the President. This is much simpler than waiting for the Supreme Court to repeal Roe v. Wade or for a constitutional amendment.

...

My position does not oppose looking for certain judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court, or even having a constitutional definition of life.

Removing the jurisdiction from the federal courts would result in fewer abortions much sooner, but it wouldn’t prevent a national effort to change the Supreme Court or the Constitution by amendment. It makes one wonder why the resistance to a practical and constitutional approach to this problem is so strong.

I agree with Ron Paul completely on this. Let's face it: a majority of Supreme Court justices willing to overturn Roe v. Wade is likely still decades away. There will likely NEVER be the super majorities in Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment banning all abortions. But an act of Congress removing abortion from the jurisdiction of the Federal courts could be passed quickly, and would allow states to start banning the murderous act of abortion. Hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved immediately, rather than sitting on our hands waiting for an all-or-nothing solution that may take years to come, during which millions of more lives will be extinguished.

The real tragedy of Dr. Paul's position is that, if only the 'institutional' pro-life movement would insist allegedly pro-life politicians support it, just such a return of abortion to the states could have been effected last decade, when putatively pro-life politicians controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. But, of course, many politicians who parade themselves as pro-life are nothing of the sort; they never want abortion to end, or even be significantly curtailed, because then they'd lose the ability to force the Christian right to continually vote for them based on the illusory promise of a pro-life Supreme Court, a promise that never materializes. And, of course, the war mongering of many of these self-same politicians shows just how much they really value human life: by their works, you shall know them.

[Brett85]

He can think abortion is immoral while acknowledging that laws, no matter where they're passed, will not be an effective deterrent.

It's fine for him to take that position, but if that's the position he takes he shouldn't claim that he's pro life. People who are pro life believe the government exists to protect innocent human life. If that's Ron's actual position, then I'm out. That's one issue I won't compromise on.

[Travlyr]

On Stossel last night he clearly said that he was opposed to building a fence or a "wall" along the border.

I've often wondered about the concept of fencing. Are they fenced out or are we fenced in?

[nate895]

Fixed?




He can think abortion is immoral while acknowledging that laws, no matter where they're passed, will not be an effective deterrent. Just like drugs - he opposes them but doesn't want anti-drug laws. The states could try regulate either if the federal govt. did not, but they would also fail. State laws to outlaw abortion probably wouldn't even get off the ground (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance133.html):


This is what happens when abortion is outlawed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmoqc2KUt84

First, your argument is invalid. Just because a law does not eliminate a behavior does not make it wrong. Laws against murder "don't work," does that mean we should legalize murder?

Also, you're making a BS comparison. Drugs do not equal abortion. Also, even though certain drugs are more perhaps more widely used because of prohibition (such as marijuana), most drugs are used less. For instance, it is much more expensive to obtain cocaine than it would be on a free market. Less people use cocaine than if it were made freely available. The marijuana is slightly different because it is so easy to obtain and the effects are so minor that it is a lot easier to overthrow the reason for its illegality. Also, marijuana has its own mystique because it is illegal, along with the other drugs. I doubt that will be the case with abortion.

[Brett85]

"My position does not oppose looking for certain judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court, or even having a constitutional definition of life."

Thanks for pointing that out. That's very important.

[Brett85]

I've often wondered about the concept of fencing. Are they fenced out or are we fenced in?

Only the people who come here illegally would be fenced out. About 1 million people would still come here legally each year, which is a huge number. Obviously, nobody would be fenced in. We could go wherever we want to go. The fearmongering by some about "a fence" to secure our borders is simply unreal.

[Inkblots]

Derb supports Ron. Think maybe some wires are crossed.

He posted this yesterday at Takimag.com

http://takimag.com/article/2012_election_preview


Edit: The Radio Derb was posted today, so, who knows. I think he just needs some clarification that Ron is not for open borders.

Hm, I think I'm going to politely write to Mr. Derbyshire and ask him to clarify his position.

[Travlyr]

I guess I never really considered a "one way fence." Technology is cool. What will they think of next?

[Inkblots]

"My position does not oppose looking for certain judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court, or even having a constitutional definition of life."

Thanks for pointing that out. That's very important.

It certainly is. I, like you, could never support a candidate who wasn't pro-life. That was actually how I learned about Dr. Paul in the first place. In December of 2006, I was speaking with a friend about politics, and we came to the conclusion that the perfect Presidential candidate would be a pro-life libertarian. After a web search, Ron Paul was the name we found. You can imagine my surprise when, about 6 months later, I found out he actually was running for president!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Only the people who come here illegally would be fenced out. About 1 million people would still come here legally each year, which is a huge number. Obviously, nobody would be fenced in. We could go wherever we want to go. The fearmongering by some about "a fence" to secure our borders is simply unreal.

Sure....Just like the IRS would never make it harder to leave. Just imagine when the budget gets destroyed by the economic calamity ahead. I'm sure they'll just let us all out. Building a fence is fencing yourself in. If you want to ignore history, and think it would never happen in America, be my guest, but don't think I'm not going to oppose it with my whole being.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Cowlesy]

A list of SUPER TOP SECRET questions TYRANTS refuse to answer!

Oh if we all only got along and followed Radical Libertarianism the world would be peaches and cream!!!

[cdc482]

I agree with the guy. Although I love Ron Paul his immigration stances seem to be inconsistent with freedom and a little racist.

[specsaregood]

I agree with the guy. Although I love Ron Paul his immigration stances seem to be inconsistent with freedom and a little racist.

Oh please, do tell what is a little racist about Dr. Paul's immigration stances? Back it up.

[mtj458]

Oh please, do tell what is a little racist about Dr. Paul's immigration stances? Back it up.

It's not a little racist but its wrong for the same reasons that racism is wrong. You wouldn't limit someones opportunity based on arbitrary things like the color of their skin (even if it might negatively effect people who share your skin color in some way), but you apparently would limit someones opportunity based on arbitrary things like which imaginary lines on the map they happened to be born between. Immigration is a great way to help the real poor people and it doesn't involve taking our things and giving to it to others. It only involves giving people the freedom to buy and sell property from and to whoever they want, to be able to employ whoever they want, and to be able to work for whoever they want.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[cdc482]

Ya he said it more or less.

If you value freedom, and you want to move into a free country, why shouldn't you be able to?! Because people who won the birth lottery and were born their are too greedy to share the wealth?!?! That is a stupid point if you study kindergarten economics. Immigrants aren't only consumers, they are also producers. In time, things will balance out.