Tom Tancredo: Ron Paul's Amnesty With An Asterisk

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul's amnesty with an asterisk (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=298533#ixzz1MNoYZWXB)


Tom Tancredo | World Net Daily
May 14, 2011


I served with Ron Paul in Congress for 10 years. He was a member of my Immigration Reform Caucus, and I consider him a friend. We didn't see eye to eye on every issue, but he was generally an ally in the fight against illegal immigration. Unfortunately, it appears that Paul's views on immigration have now shifted into the pro-amnesty camp.

Last week, Rep. Paul released his latest book, "Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/145550145X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=145550145X)." One of those 50 issues is immigration, and Paul gives a more detailed explanation of his views in the book than I have ever seen before.

The result is not pretty. Paul's book misrepresents the views of immigration-control advocates and then insults their motivations. He insinuates that patriotic Americans who oppose mass immigration are lazy and motivated by race. He says that immigrants "have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything." He also claims, "It's hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than toward a European illegal immigrant."
...

In addition to insulting the motives of the critics of uncontrolled immigration, he argues against policies that we don't support. According to Paul, immigration-control advocates want to "use the U.S. Army, round them up, ship them home." In my decades fighting this battle, I have not once heard anyone advocate using the military for deportations.

Paul says deporting illegal immigrants will require "splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades." Of course, there is nothing keeping the children of illegal immigrants from going home for their parents. If we got rid of birthright citizenship, which Paul says he supports, that would not be an issue to begin with.
...

Paul comes out against Arizona's popular SB 1070 law using absurd arguments of the type normally heard only from America-hating leftists: "Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of 'suspicion' is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a 'threat,' without charges ever being made."

I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what supposed secret prisons and political assassinations have to do with enforcing our immigration laws. The Arizona law's definition of 
"reasonable suspicion" is the same standard that applies for federal immigration officials and local law enforcement for non-immigration violations, so the law does not expand police powers.

So if we can't enforce the law, what does Paul want to do with the 12 million illegal aliens here in this country? While he says he opposes amnesty, he argues, "Maybe a 'greencard' with an asterisk could be issued." This "asterisk" would deny them welfare and not grant them immediate "automatic citizenship." Both these qualifications are meaningless because every amnesty proposal makes illegal aliens jump through some symbolic hoops before they get amnesty.

I have no idea why he has changed his position on illegal immigration, but one thing is clear: Asterisk or not, Ron Paul now supports amnesty.

[FrankRep]

Vintage Ron Paul:


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

Ron Paul
April 4, 2006


The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters' cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don't speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.

We're often reminded that America is a nation of immigrants, implying that we're coldhearted to restrict immigration in any way. But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again. They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality.

Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans — including immigrants — want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago.

We're often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume — especially medical care.

We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.

Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one's birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.

We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.


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

[Agorism]

This guy endorsed McCain.....who pushed the worst immigration bill of all time.

He's the party's rug. They walk all over him, and he never picks up on it.

[AuH20]

This guy endorsed McCain.....who pushed the worst immigration bill of all time.

He's the party's rug. They walk all over him, and he never picks up on it.

He actually endorsed Romney. McCain was never ever an option for Tancredo.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016386.php

[Flash]

Ron Paul needs to clarify his views on illegal immigration immediately. Before it becomes an issue. I'm beginning to doubt he wants to keep illegals out.

[AlexanderY]

Ron Paul needs to clarify his views on illegal immigration immediately. Before it becomes an issue. I'm beginning to doubt he wants to keep illegals out.

Sarcasm?

[Agorism]

Tancredo supported McCain in the general is what I was referring to.

[FrankRep]

Tancredo supported McCain in the general is what I was referring to.
Barry Goldwater, Jr also supported McCain in the General election. Not a big deal.

[Agorism]

Barry Goldwater, Jr also supported McCain in the General election. Not a big deal.

It is in Tancredo's case. I would never vote for a candidate who supported McCain btw.

[FrankRep]

It is in Tancredo's case. I would never vote for a candidate who supported McCain btw.

The election was down to Obama vs. McCain.

Tancredo chose McCain.

[Carson]

I don't think I could vote for a candidate that refuses to protect our borders.

My generation was attacked when we were in elementary school with the concept that there wasn't going to be enough room on the roads and water and such to have children the way we had in the past. Many of us have found ourselves alone and not surrounded by children and grand children but by the criminals in businesses illegal labor. At the same time our government was annihilating us it was opening the borders and allowing the other countries of the world to export their population problems.

We have a lot invested in controlling the population and much of it was not by choice.

[Agorism]

The election was down to Obama vs. McCain.

Tancredo chose McCain.

No it wasn't. I voted for Chuck Baldwin.

Just because he wasn't allowed into the dem-rep debate doesn't mean he wasn't running.

[FrankRep]

No it wasn't. I voted for Chuck Baldwin.

Just because he wasn't allowed into the dem-rep debate doesn't mean he wasn't running.

In Reality: Obama vs. McCain

[Feeding the Abscess]

In Reality: Obama vs. McCain

In Reality: He Supported McCain

[White Bear Lake]

In reality, Paul needs to shore up his border-protection credentials if he wants any chance at the nomination. This should be an easy issue. Bring home the troops, line some of them up down along Mexico. The conservative base will eat up every bit of this. It would be much easier to for them to stomach bringing troops home if he proposed that they're more needed to protect our SW states from drug cartels and violence. He could then use this to lead into drug policy and explain how legalization would help reduce smuggling.

[BuddyRey]

Again, the whole immigration issue is another case of treating a symptom rather than the illness itself. Instead of looking at the policies of the elites that caused this whole mess in the first place (the drug war, and the welfare state), we're being tricked by these same people into trying to "solve" the immigrant problem through more police state measures like eVerify, militarizing the border, and turning the USA into East Berlin. End the misbegotten gov't programs that sparked the mass influx and most of the people who entered illegally with criminal intentions will simply leave.

The elites are playing the Hegelian Dialectic on us big-time, and it's working like a charm.

[Southron]

In reality, Paul needs to shore up his border-protection credentials if he wants any chance at the nomination. This should be an easy issue. Bring home the troops, line some of them up down along Mexico. The conservative base will eat up every bit of this. It would be much easier to for them to stomach bringing troops home if he proposed that they're more needed to protect our SW states from drug cartels and violence. He could then use this to lead into drug policy and explain how legalization would help reduce smuggling.

Excellent point. That would definitely make ending the wars more palatable to Republican voters.

[Brian4Liberty]

My generation was attacked when we were in elementary school with the concept that there wasn't going to be enough room on the roads and water and such to have children the way we had in the past. Many of us have found ourselves alone and not surrounded by children and grand children but by the criminals in businesses illegal labor. At the same time our government was annihilating us it was opening the borders and allowing the other countries of the world to export their population problems.

We have a lot invested in controlling the population and much of it was not by choice.

That is the fact. It was a full-scale propaganda war.

[FrankRep]

Disclaimer: This article is Defending Ron Paul.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories2011/09aApril/ron-paul-ap.001.jpg



NumbersUSA awarded Ron Paul a failing grade for his constitutionalist stance on illegal immigration, because of his libertarian approach to the problem.


Anti-Illegal Immigration Group Awards an "F" to Ron Paul (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/7393-anti-illegal-immigration-group-awards-an-qfq-to-ron-paul)


Joe Wolverton, II | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
09 May 2011

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul needs to clarify his views on illegal immigration immediately. Before it becomes an issue. I'm beginning to doubt he wants to keep illegals out.

Yup, I agree.

[wizardwatson]

Disclaimer: This article is Defending Ron Paul.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories2011/09aApril/ron-paul-ap.001.jpg



NumbersUSA awarded Ron Paul a failing grade for his constitutionalist stance on illegal immigration, because of his libertarian approach to the problem.


Anti-Illegal Immigration Group Awards an "F" to Ron Paul (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/7393-anti-illegal-immigration-group-awards-an-qfq-to-ron-paul)


Joe Wolverton, II | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
09 May 2011

It's weird. I see threads like this and I wonder to myself, "is Ron really in a corner here?" The more I research the more I realize, "nope". This is what's great about RP. When they fight him on his ideas they will lose, as the above article points out.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Again, the whole immigration issue is another case of treating a symptom rather than the illness itself. Instead of looking at the policies of the elites that caused this whole mess in the first place (the drug war, and the welfare state), we're being tricked by these same people into trying to "solve" the immigrant problem through more police state measures like eVerify, militarizing the border, and turning the USA into East Berlin. End the misbegotten gov't programs that sparked the mass influx and most of the people who entered illegally with criminal intentions will simply leave.

The elites are playing the Hegelian Dialectic on us big-time, and it's working like a charm.

For everyone wanting Ron to address the border issues, this is the answer. He's attacking the underlying cause of the disease, not the symptoms.

[AlexanderY]

For everyone wanting Ron to address the border issues, this is the answer. He's attacking the underlying cause of the disease, not the symptoms.

END THE WELFARE STATE! End it!

[Flash]

Even if you end the welfare state & abolish minimum wage laws, immigrants will still pour into this country. Someone on this forum posted a statistic a year ago that something like... a billion people around the world would seriously consider moving to America. We would basically be swarmed by a bunch of people who don't understand Anglo-Celtic culture, won't speak english, will vote for big government policies, will vote for politicians (Democrats) who will restore minimum wage and the welfare state, etc... It would be even worse in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, where Nationalistic ethnicities would form together and build their own governments and align with their homeland. I could easily see the ethnocentric Chinese and Mexicans doing this.

This country would go to hell in no time. Granted, Ron Paul never came out and said he supported open borders, but I know RP fairly well. He is way more radical than he leads on... and he always hinted he was pro-immigration.

He needs to go back to his 2007/2008 ideology. Take the troops out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Europe, Japan and put them on the Mexican-American border. This asterisk card bullshit is never going to work. It's basically open borders.


Sarcasm?

Just look at California. It was a Tea Party year and the Republicans got their ass kicked. Even my so-called Liberal state of Massachusetts went to the Republicans this year. These Hispanic immigrants, legal & illegal, just vote Democrat. I read a statistic where something like 70% of them said will ONLY vote for a Dem. Our country has a serious problem. And it's not just an illegal immigration problem. It's an IMMIGRATION problem. Until this is addressed, I don't know if I can support RP like I did before.

And yeah, yeah I know ending the War on Drugs, government handouts, farm subsidies, and welfare would solve a lot of problems. But consider the fact that..


A) This won't happen unless there was a major crisis and the American people were ready for Libertarian radicalism.

B) This still doesn't change the voting habits of the immigrants. Who, like I pointed out before, generally vote for big-gubmint Dems.

C) They're still an alien element in our society, and diversity leads only to racism and tension. How are immigrants benefiting our society? We need to take a much more conservative approach to the immigration issue like what Denmark is doing. They're only allowing in immigrants who will benefit their nation and assimilate.

D) What about the American nation? If we had open borders in a Libertarian society, all of our unique cultures would evaporate basically overnight, as the immigrant hoards flooded into every state. Southern culture? Gone. New England culture? Gone. It reminds me of when Ben Franklin was complaining about the German immigrants coming into to America. And they were actually good at assimilating and looked & acted generally like the English/Scots-Irish population. They even had the same religion. Just imagine what Ben Franklin would say today...

E) Even if we lived in an Anarcho-Capitalist, Anarcho-Socialist, Mutualist, or whatever stateless society-- immigrants will still retain a huge loyalty to their motherland. Chinese immigrants will more likely form a new [voluntary] government on American soil and seek alliance with their homeland. Mexicans will try to fulfill their La Raza fantasies and do the same. The idea of Anarchy is simply impractical.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Even if you end the welfare state & abolish minimum wage laws, immigrants will still pour into this country. Someone on this forum posted a statistic a year ago that something like... a billion people around the world would seriously consider moving to America. We would basically be swarmed by a bunch of people who don't understand Anglo-Celtic culture, won't speak english, will vote for big government policies, will vote for politicians (Democrats) who will restore minimum wage and the welfare state, etc... It would be even worse in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, where Nationalistic ethnicities would form together and build their own governments and align with their homeland. I could easily see the ethnocentric Chinese and Mexicans doing this.

This country would go to hell in no time. Granted, Ron Paul never came out and said he supported open borders, but I know RP fairly well. He is way more radical than he leads on... and he always hinted he was pro-immigration.

He needs to go back to his 2007/2008 ideology. Take the troops out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Europe, Japan and put them on the Mexican-American border. This asterisk card bullshit is never going to work. It's basically open borders.



Just look at California. It was a Tea Party year and the Republicans got their ass kicked. Even my so-called Liberal state of Massachusetts went to the Republicans this year. These Hispanic immigrants, legal & illegal, just vote Democrat. I read a statistic where something like 70% of them said will ONLY vote for a Dem. Our country has a serious problem. And it's not just an illegal immigration problem. It's an IMMIGRATION problem. Until this is addressed, I don't know if I can support RP like I did before.

And yeah, yeah I know ending the War on Drugs, government handouts, farm subsidies, and welfare would solve a lot of problems. But consider the fact that..


A) This won't happen unless there was a major crisis and the American people were ready for Libertarian radicalism.

B) This still doesn't change the voting habits of the immigrants. Who, like I pointed out before, generally vote for big-gubmint Dems.

C) They're still an alien element in our society, and diversity leads only to racism and tension. How are immigrants benefiting our society? We need to take a much more conservative approach to the immigration issue like what Denmark is doing. They're only allowing in immigrants who will benefit their nation and assimilate.

D) What about the American nation? If we had open borders in a Libertarian society, all of our unique cultures would evaporate basically overnight, as the immigrant hoards flooded into every state. Southern culture? Gone. New England culture? Gone. It reminds me of when Ben Franklin was complaining about the German immigrants coming into to America. And they were actually good at assimilating and looked & acted generally like the English/Scots-Irish population. They even had the same religion. Just imagine what Ben Franklin would say today...

E) Even if we lived in an Anarcho-Capitalist, Anarcho-Socialist, Mutualist, or whatever stateless society-- immigrants will still retain a huge loyalty to their motherland. Chinese immigrants will more likely form a new [voluntary] government on American soil and seek alliance with their homeland. Mexicans will try to fulfill their La Raza fantasies and do the same. The idea of Anarchy is simply impractical.

+1

Almost everything I'd've said.

Yes, America doesn't have an "illegal immigration problem" but an "IMMIGRATION PROBLEM", we're past 300 million how many more before we'll say enough? And at this rate, how long will we be able to keep our living standards as a country, if all the new entrants keep voting socialist? I think the US citizenship should be an honor & should only be offered to highly-skilled foreigners & by that, I DON'T mean cabbies & nannies but rather doctors, engineers, scientists, etc who bring irreplaceable talent & value to the country.

Further, as has been said, if immigration continues this way then eventually there're going to be racial & ethnic divisions & that's only going increase tensions & also start a financial tug-of-war for introducing more & more socialist/communist policies; there's a reason why poor people usually vote socialist/communist & there's a reason why Founding Fathers were libertarian so if there's a large third-world influx, then that's not good for libertarianism in this country anyway.

Libertarianism isn't so much about open-borders or sound money or gun-rights or whatever but more than anything else it's about people's right to self-determination & NOT necessarily as individuals but as a group & believe it or not, even though we do talk about individualism a lot, by now, we should know that none of that talk matters one bit if there ain't an army of libertarians willing to stand up & be counted for fellow libertarians & having open borders (in terms of citizenship & birthright), whether we've welfare or not, isn't going to help the libertarian cause. Believe it or not, humans are social animals & are largely a "tribalist" species; what are we afterall, if not a "libertarian-tribe"!

So having said all this, I hope Ron Paul takes a strong stand on immigration & birthright citizenship, I'm sure that'll score big with a lot republicans & independents who aren't liking the trend, especially the socialist direction.

[sailingaway]

National review has picked this up as part of their 'Gary Johnson is the more sophisticated, worldly guy you should back' push. They intentionally smear Ron by saying his views are similar to Gary's plus have 'changed' implying he has caved and isn't principled, then say Gary is better because he has no hard and fast principles what soever. (OK they say he 'balances all factors' but it is the same thing) I have a thread on this in Ron's grassroots forum. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?294796-We-are-going-to-hear-a-lot-more-about-immigraition-National-Review-just-did-a-piece