Ron Paul's Position on Borders, Amnesty, Citizenship and Enforcement of Existing Laws

[TJMadison]

Because Ron Paul identifies ideologically with libertarianism, many believe that he is for open borders and amnesty. This claim is false. He is on record as opposing any attempts at amnesty. He has previously voted for legislation that would block amnesty and erect a border fence. While, he does not feel a border fence would be necessary if the incentives for illegal immigration (welfare, health care, amnesty, etc) were eliminated, he voted for the bill strictly to be on record against amnesty.

From his book, Liberty Defined:

“The libertarians who argue for completely open borders for the free flow of goods and people fail to realize that a truly libertarian society would not necessarily be that open. The land and property would be privately owned and controlled by the owners, who would have the right to prevent newcomers from entering without their permission. There would be no government havens or welfare benefits and new immigrants would come only after a sponsor’s permission.” Ron Paul

The following excerpts are from Paul's most recent book, "Liberty Defined, 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom". Here are several statements from the chapter on Immigration:

Enforce the laws now on the books with more border guards; permit states to enforce the law; allow landowners to provide private property security assistance, just as we do everyday throughout the United States, and to work with Federal Border Control authorities.

Do not grant automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in the United States, deliberately or accidentally.

Stop all federal mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care for illegal immigrants. The absurdity of South Texas schools are overburdened with Mexican children going back and forth over the border each day to our public school systems is resented by cash-strapped school districts.

Don't punish third parties for not being keen to act as law enforcement agents in regard to illegal immigration.

Immigrants that cannot be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship - no amnesty should be granted.

Those immigrants, legal or illegal, who incite violence or commit crimes of violence should be prosecuted under the law and lose their right to stay in this country.

The police should not be prohibited from determining an individual's citizenship if the person is caught participating in a crime.

Source: Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, Chapter: Immigration, pages 150 - 159. Available here:
http://www.amazon.com/Libe​rty-Defined-Essential-Issu​es-Freedom/dp/145550145X

[dannno]

I agree with the OP for the most part, but that doesn't really tell the whole story.

For one thing, if it was all up to private property owners, someone with property on the border would likely let people go by for a small fee. If not one property owner in this area, some other one in another area.

More importantly, however, Ron Paul used to be for open borders back in the 80s. The reason his position changed wasn't because of a philosophical change as much as a logistical change in the way he applied the philosophy.

First of all, you NEVER need to use amnesty, there can always be a path to citizenship, allowing to control those who may be violent criminals and such from entering. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make it easier for immigrants to come here legally.

We don't have a libertarian society, we have welfare and government services that are free for just about anybody. Therefore this has caused a lot of immigrants to come here merely for those services, and as long as those services exist the people who pay for them should be able to protect against just anybody coming in an using them. There is a constitutional argument in favor of this and there is no libertarian argument that says you must have amnesty before ending government services for illegal immigrants. In fact most libertarians would agree that logistically it should occur in the opposite order.

Mostly, however, the libertarian argument is that illegal immigrants are not inherently bad people or criminals (though they may have broken a "law" that doesn't mean they have hurt anybody), they shouldn't be feared or used as political pawns and Ron Paul agrees with most if not all of that (specifically, the parts about avoiding demonizing illegal immigrants or using said fear of illegal immigration as a pawn to further a political career).

[dannno]

We don't have a libertarian society, we have welfare and government services that are free for just about anybody. Therefore this has caused a lot of immigrants to come here merely for those services, and as long as those services exist the people who pay for them should be able to protect against just anybody coming in an using them. There is a constitutional argument in favor of this and there is no libertarian argument that says you must have amnesty before ending government services for illegal immigrants. In fact most libertarians would agree that logistically it should occur in the opposite order.

Of course I will take this time to debunk the myth that illegal aliens don't pay for their services, in fact illegal aliens as a group pay more in taxes than they receive in government services. To use this argument against the idea that we should end government services for illegals is a bit collectivist because those services still do attract illegal aliens up here, and individually they are not required to pay taxes to receive services, so it's still an 'attraction' that requires a mechanism to prevent too many people from abusing the system until the system can be gotten rid of.

[truelies]

............. in fact illegal aliens as a group pay more in taxes than they receive in government services. ...............

Proof?

[Brian4Liberty]

Proof?

Considering that almost all government statistics are lies, that would be hard to prove.

[Brian4Liberty]

No amnesty and no (Jus soli) birthright citizenship were two of Ron Paul's major 2008 campaign planks, along with the elimination of income taxes, the IRS, the Dept of Education and the Federal Reserve.

[Brian4Liberty]

Straight from the Ron Paul 2012 Campaign website:


Immigration

A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY

A nation without borders is no nation at all.

It just doesn’t make sense to fight terrorists abroad while leaving our front door unlocked.

Unfortunately, for far too long, neither major political party has had the courage to do what is necessary to tackle the problem.

Instead, we’re presented with so-called “solutions” that involve amnesty proposals or further restricting Americans’ civil liberties through programs like REAL ID.

Ron Paul opposes both of these schemes and believes they will only make illegal immigration and the problems associated with it worse. He has been proud to see states exercising their Tenth Amendment rights and protecting their citizens by refusing to comply with the unconstitutional REAL ID law.

While the federal government neglects its constitutional responsibility to protect our borders, it continues to push mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care to illegal immigrants at a time when the states are drowning in debt. This must not be tolerated any longer.

Like most Americans, Ron Paul also understands just how valuable legal immigration is to our country.

Immigrants who want to work hard, obey our laws, and live the American Dream have always been great assets.
COMMON SENSE REFORMS

If elected President, Ron Paul will work to implement the following common sense reforms:

* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

* Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.

As long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake.

As President, Ron Paul will address immigration by fighting for effective solutions that protect our nation, uphold the rule of law, and respect every American citizen’s civil liberties.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/

[AlexanderY]

Well, I think the big question is what about the children of illegals were born here?

If you were to end birthright citizenship, that would only apply to those born after that portion of the 14th is repealed. I think we should end birthright citizenship, but I believe deporting the children of illegals who were born here would be contentious, especially if you consider Article 1 Section 9.

We have to start somewhere though.

[dannno]

Well, I think the big question is what about the children of illegals were born here?

If you were to end birthright citizenship, that would only apply to those born after that portion of the 14th is repealed. I think we should end birthright citizenship, but I believe deporting the children of illegals who were born here would be contentious, especially if you consider Article 1 Section 9.

We have to start somewhere though.

I don't think anybody should be "rounded up", but violent criminals who aren't citizens should be deported.

[Buchananite]

One thing I would disagree with him on is the fence. He doesn't really seem open to it. Other than that he is good one the issue and he will address other problems the other candidates don't talk about.

[Rothbardian Girl]

One thing I would disagree with him on is the fence. He doesn't really seem open to it. Other than that he is good one the issue and he will address other problems the other candidates don't talk about.

Here's the reasoning behind that, though: no matter what border security measures are taken, there will be still be criminals who make it across the border no matter what, even if there are fences being put up. It would actually be a lot more effective, and a more permanent solution, to end or severely throttle the welfare service first. I know, both propositions are extremely sticky, but there really is no solution that won't end up either costing a veritable shit-ton of money, or taking forever to actually enact.

Here's a good video showing just how ineffective border fence measures are (you've probably seen it already): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHjKBjM1ngw

The more politically viable response for Ron Paul, though, is to advocate bringing the troops home and to station them around the border. I believe he alluded to this in the Ames debate (this shocked me quite a bit, by the way, because he hasn't been as firm on that issue in the past).

I don't necessarily approve of illegal immigration, but ultimately the protection should be done by private landowners who happen to own border property. I'm sure if the economy wasn't in the dumps there wouldn't be such an outcry over this issue either. The problem of immigration will likely lessen hundredfold if there are other measures that are taken first before wasting untold amounts of dollars on fencing.