PDA

View Full Version : Re: Ron Paul's "border fence" statement




cavalier973
09-08-2011, 10:48 AM
There seems to be a general consensus among the conservative blogheads that Ron Paul’s assertion that a government-erected border fence might possibly be used against us is just more evidence of “Crazy Uncle Ron’s” weirdness.
I suppose one day, when these contemptible buffoons are shoved into a chair, and have a rat cage forced onto their heads, they’ll finally be hit with the epiphany that the Federal Government (more than Islamic radicals ever could) hates us for our freedoms.
Their protestation that they want to limit government ring false; they, as much as any prog, want greater government control over our lives. They fear possible threats more than they fear the real threat of governmment power. And they’re quite willing to hand over to the government more power to “keep us safe” from illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants aren’t forcing us to be strip-searched at airports. Illegal immigrants aren’t trying to throw us in jail for killing a grizzly bear that threatened our families (and then letting us off with a “mere” $1,000 fine). Illegal immigrants aren’t subjecting our small businesses with onerous regulation. Illegal immigrants haven’t tried to centralize the national health care system under government control. That’s all the fine work of our own government.

These so-called conservatives are like a man who, in order to protect himself from potential burglars, invites a serial killer to move in.

And when “Crazy Uncle Ron” expresses alarm over endless foreign wars, they mock him as being uninterested in national defense. Well, the strongest national defense we could possibly have is an armed populace, and possibly a missile defense shield. An invincible Federal Army does not make us safer from itself. Endless foreign wars do not make us safer from our own government. Every war in which this nation has entered has seen a rescinding of American liberties, liberties which were only partially restored at each war’s end. Now, the FedGov has the perfect war–one which can never be won, and so must always be waged, and in which liberties need never be restored.

specsaregood
09-08-2011, 10:53 AM
When half the country is screaming and demanding that the government "tax the rich", I fail to see how Dr. Paul is crazy for suggesting that our government might use border controls to keep people and their money in the country in the event of a major economic crisis.

archangel689
09-08-2011, 11:03 AM
I just find it hypocritical to praise Ronald Reagan for "Tear this wall down" then immediately start talking about building a border fence.

IDefendThePlatform
09-08-2011, 11:03 AM
WWII we had internment camps right here in America.

cavalier973
09-08-2011, 11:35 AM
Here's what he said:
“The people that want big fences and guns, sure, we could secure the border,” the congressman noted. “A barbed wire fence with machine guns, that would do the trick. I don’t believe that is what America is all about.”

“Every time you think about this toughness on the border and ID cards and REAL IDs, think it’s a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and there’s capital controls and there’s people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in.”

NFlaGator
09-08-2011, 11:33 PM
Yes, I believe those fences could one day be a detriment. If anyone thinks our govenment isn't prepared to arrest us for ANY reason they want to classify as terrorism, or a threat to national security, please wake up soon. Dr. Paul has been fighting for our liberties, rights and freedoms for a long time, certainly long enough for him to be privy to the 'ugly' side of government. Anyone remember the Iran-Contra affair? Here's a reminder...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24621067/Reagan-Aides-and-the-Secret-Government-The-Miami-Herald-July-5-1987

And yes, there are detainment facilities in every state, (some states have several large facilities) capable of housing thousands of people. Many are NEW and perhaps could be very useful in the event of a major disaster. But since I don't recall FEMA offer up the Louisiana facilities following the Katrina disaster, maybe they are just waiting for the civil unrest that will eventually take place if those people (ALL of them) in Washington don't get their act together. Again, something that could be used for good can also be a detriment.

CaptainAmerica
09-08-2011, 11:53 PM
people who think a fence is going to fix the nation have their head up their ass. You can't put a bandage over a broken bone and expect a person to get well. The suppression of the problem (the problem being entitlements, bad economic regulations,taxation and war on drugs) by raising a fence will never fix anything.

AFPVet
09-09-2011, 12:21 AM
people who think a fence is going to fix the nation have their head up their ass. You can't put a bandage over a broken bone and expect a person to get well. The suppression of the problem (the problem being entitlements, bad economic regulations,taxation and war on drugs) by raising a fence will never fix anything.

Amen. Unorganized militia units have been the only difference between the cartels and the governments of many border towns. Where is this on the news? Fences won't matter... it's putting patrols out there which will effect results. There are already fences... they just tunnel under them.

ProIndividual
09-09-2011, 12:31 AM
They already made it (illegally) harder to get a passport...Freedom Watch did a quick segment on it. Also, from experience, it's getting harder to move out this country. I've been planning a move since June, and It's easily going to take another month to get everything okayed for permanant residence due to bereaucracy and American govt pressure on the country I'm moving to, to slow things down to a snails pace. That's okay though, I'm not leaving until next June, or if Ron get's nominated, next November after I vote.

So it's already begun...they are going to stop the already in process Exodus. The State depends on it's host (it is a parasite), and can't have all the taxpayers leaving.

Zap!
09-09-2011, 12:56 AM
This is why I'm a Pat Buchanan paleo-con first and a Ron Paul libertarian second. Pat supports watchtowers with armed guards and landmines at the border. Cool.

Aratus
09-09-2011, 01:00 AM
forgive me for not opining sooner --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMnLoOnrwbg --- this is a VERY famous song!

sickmint79
09-09-2011, 02:07 AM
i'd focus on the capital controls part of his answer to this question.

Dsylexic
09-09-2011, 05:16 AM
ron paul is ahead of the curve here.he is reporting what he sees ahead on the road to serfdom.unfortunately most of the country is still in la la land.the proverbial frog in the boiling pot. no wonder people find it bizzare. wish paul could speak in the lingo of the masses.his message is fine and makes perfect sense to those who can think 10 steps ahead.not for the rest of the zombies

Revolution9
09-09-2011, 05:29 AM
If you want to kill an ecosystem just put a fence or railroad across it. A fence stops the migration of larger animals or limits feeding ranges and iron seems to suck the energies right out of arable land as in the dust bowl. The bottom line though is America, as I was taught as a youth, is not a place surrounded by barbed wire with machine gun toting guards but a land of opportunity and liberty where Andy of Mayberry was the local law enforcement and the goon squad was given one bullet. When you were born it was just fine to put your name in the family Bible without a CUSIP Berth/Birth Certificate, chase them danged revenooers off yer property with a salt shotgun, and toss a good ole John Wayne right cross to the jaw of any reprobate who didn't know how to mind his proper manners.

Rev9

Krugerrand
09-09-2011, 05:49 AM
Considering that we already have "border patrol" doing unconstitutional road blocks completely away from the border, I don't see how anybody can refute that this 'security' works against us.

XNavyNuke
09-10-2011, 07:30 AM
Ignorance of our own United States history is the only reason why a person would conclude that our government would never use border controls to prevent crossing into adjacent countries. Use the draft dodgers and deserters from the Vietnam war as an example, or those of German ancestry crossing into Mexico prior to, and during, WW1. Google News these periods and learn what was really happening. Don't believe the crap the public education establishment passes off as US history.

XNN

truthspeaker
09-10-2011, 08:25 AM
Amen. Unorganized militia units have been the only difference between the cartels and the governments of many border towns. Where is this on the news? Fences won't matter... it's putting patrols out there which will effect results. There are already fences... they just tunnel under them.

Are you referencing to the Minute Men? Or are there others?

R3volutionJedi
09-10-2011, 02:25 PM
I loved the border fence comment!

AFPVet
09-10-2011, 03:06 PM
Are you referencing to the Minute Men? Or are there others?

I believe there are many groups (named and unnamed).

Brett85
09-10-2011, 03:45 PM
This is why I'm a Pat Buchanan paleo-con first and a Ron Paul libertarian second. Pat supports watchtowers with armed guards and landmines at the border. Cool.

I agree. Even though you'll get attacked for saying this here, I'm pretty wary of Ron's position on the immigration issue. I wouldn't care if Ron said that he opposed the fence, as long as he said how he would secure the border as an alternative. But he didn't do that at all in the debate, and he came across as being very soft on immigration. This was an issue that we could've used against Rick Perry, because Perry has a very weak record on the immigration issue. But Ron's position on this issue isn't any better than Perry's from what I can see. I'm still going to support Ron Paul in the race, simply because the other candidates are all so bad. I can't support one of these candidates who support perpetual war in the middle east. But I still have concerns over Ron's stance on the immigration issue, and I sent an email to the campaign addressing my concerns. I hope that they respond to my email. In all honestly, if somebody like Pat Buchanan was in the race, I would support him instead of Ron.

Aratus
09-10-2011, 06:00 PM
!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMnLoOnrwbg !

Johnny Appleseed
09-10-2011, 07:22 PM
Hello! Mexico [censored] sucks! Until there comes a time when Mexico doesn't [censored] suck we will have an illegal immigration problem.

TonyMcAuliffe
09-11-2011, 07:20 AM
Here in Germany we had the Berlin Wall. The sovjets said it was an anti-fascist-protection wall but in reality it was a giant prison.
The people were poor because of the communist planned-market crap. Many people died by trying to flee. They were shot by their own people.
They got the "StaSi" (Staatssicherheit, translated "Homeland Security"). It was an agency to destroy the opposition. They had millions of agents in this little country (for example Angela Merkel).
These things can be used and i think they will be used to hold a broken system together.

Bruno
09-11-2011, 07:26 AM
Here in Germany we had the Berlin Wall. The sovjets said it was an anti-fascist-protection wall but in reality it was a giant prison.
The people were poor because of the communist planned-market crap. Many people died by trying to flee. They were shot by their own people.
They got the "StaSi" (Staatssicherheit, translated "Homeland Security"). It was an agency to destroy the opposition. They had millions of agents in this little country.
These things can be used and i think they will be used to hold a broken system together.

+ 1, excellent first post and welcome!

erowe1
09-11-2011, 07:30 AM
Hello! Mexico [censored] sucks! Until there comes a time when Mexico doesn't [censored] suck we will have an illegal immigration problem.

If we made immigration legal, then we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem.

Brett85
09-11-2011, 07:44 AM
If we made immigration legal, then we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem.

It's already legal, but obviously there has to be a limit to it. We couldn't handle allowing 20 million people to come here every year.

erowe1
09-11-2011, 07:47 AM
It's already legal, but obviously there has to be a limit to it. We couldn't handle allowing 20 million people to come here every year.

Why not?

johnrocks
09-11-2011, 07:51 AM
I have found out this since 2007, no matter what Ron Paul supports or opposes and no matter how small government he is, the Hannity/Limbaugh cheerleading section will find a reason to dismiss him and no matter how big government the others;from Perry to Romney; they will find a reason to defend them or dismiss the evidence.


It boils down to foreign policy, he could be for a 1000 foot high concrete fence with a guard posted every ten yards and they would still oppose Ron Paul, need to get new blood in the GOP because trying to convince a bunch of neo cons;might convince a few; is a waste of time.

WilliamC
09-11-2011, 08:23 AM
This is why I'm a Pat Buchanan paleo-con first and a Ron Paul libertarian second. Pat supports watchtowers with armed guards and landmines at the border. Cool.

Jut so long as I can have my AA-12 you can have your fences and guard towers.

But you best be prepared to open the gate when I want to get through 'cause unless it's your private property I'm as much in charge of them as you are.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWlSw5Kb0dg

(And the road becomes my bride)

And the road becomes my bride
I have stripped of all but pride
So in her I do confide
And she keeps me satisfied
Gives me all I need

And with dust in throat I crave
Only knowledge will I save
To the game you stay a slave

Rover, wanderer
Nomad, vagabond
Call me what you will

But I'll take my time anywhere
Free to speak my mind anywhere
And I'll redefine anywhere

Anywhere I roam
Where I lay my head is home

(And the earth becomes my throne)

And the earth becomes my throne
I adapt to the unknown
Under wandering stars I've grown
By myself but not alone
I ask no one

And my ties are severed clean
Less I have the more I gain
Off the beaten path I reign

Rover, wanderer
Nomad, vagabond
Call me what you will

But I'll take my time anywhere
I'm free to speak my mind anywhere
and I'll take my time anywhere

Anywhere I roam
Where I lay my head is home
YE' YEAH

But I'll take my time anywhere
I'm free to speak my mind
And I'll take my time anywhere

Anywhere I may roam
Where I lay my head is home
I say!

But I'll take my time anywhere
I'm free to speak my mind anywhere
And I'll redefine anywhere

Anywhere I may roam
Where I lay my head is home

Carved upon my stone
My body lies, but still I roam,
Yeah yeah!

Wherever I may roam
Wherever I may roam
Woah

Wherever I may roam
Wherever I may roam
Yeah!

Wherever I may wander, wander, wander
Wherever I may roam

Yeah, yeah, wherever I may roam

Yeah, yeah, wherever I may roam
Wherever I may roam
Wherever I may roam

WilliamC
09-11-2011, 08:32 AM
If we made immigration legal, then we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem.

Immigration is legal, duh.

I've worked with folks from several countries migrated here and who have become US citizens.

Legally.

Of all the functions of government perhaps the most basic is securing it's territory from foreign invasion.

Johnny Appleseed
09-11-2011, 08:39 AM
Why don't Mexicans clean their own house and make it a better place to live instead of being an eyesore on the North American neighborhood?

When we talk about a fence it's a given that we are talking about Mexico and not Canada. Why? Because Canada doesn't [censored] suck!

No illegal immigration? Do you have doors on your house? Locks? Why?

Ive worked with and known some A#1 Mexicans but as a people they need to get their [censored] together.

erowe1
09-11-2011, 08:46 AM
No illegal immigration? Do you have doors on your house? Locks? Why?

Good point. Since we all are responsible for protecting our own individual property, we can't impose our wills on the rest of the country and try to regulate whom they can welcome on their own individual properties.

In other words, you're also against immigration being illegal.

erowe1
09-11-2011, 08:47 AM
Immigration is legal, duh.

I've worked with folks from several countries migrated here and who have become US citizens.

Legally.

Of all the functions of government perhaps the most basic is securing it's territory from foreign invasion.

So if there's no such thing as illegal immigration, how can there be an illegal immigration problem?

WilliamC
09-11-2011, 08:52 AM
So if there's no such thing as illegal immigration, how can there be an illegal immigration problem?

Still having problems with definitions I see.

If there is no such thing as illegal killing how can there be a murder problem?

erowe1
09-11-2011, 08:55 AM
Still having problems with definitions I see.

If there is no such thing as illegal killing how can there be a murder problem?

If there weren't any such thing as murder then there wouldn't be a murder problem. But there is such a thing. And murder wouldn't cease to be murder if it were legal. But whatever immigration is now illegal would cease to be illegal immigration if it were legal.

WilliamC
09-11-2011, 09:04 AM
If there weren't any such thing as murder then there wouldn't be a murder problem. But there is such a thing. And murder wouldn't cease to be murder if it were legal. But whatever immigration is now illegal would cease to be illegal immigration if it were legal.

And if wishes were fishes all could be fed.

One of the most basic functions of government is to prevent invasion of it's territory.

As I do support limited government, even a limited Federal Government, I also support the authority of the Federal Government to regulate non-citizens entering the country.

In a free-for-all where any and everyone could come then there would rapidly be no more United States as based on the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Of course there isn't much of one left now anyway, and hasn't been since the mid-1800's, but that is sort of the goal in supporting Ron Paul, to get back to some semblence of what the USA used to be, if that is possible.

erowe1
09-11-2011, 11:26 AM
And if wishes were fishes all could be fed.

One of the most basic functions of government is to prevent invasion of it's territory.

As I do support limited government, even a limited Federal Government, I also support the authority of the Federal Government to regulate non-citizens entering the country.

In a free-for-all where any and everyone could come then there would rapidly be no more United States as based on the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Of course there isn't much of one left now anyway, and hasn't been since the mid-1800's, but that is sort of the goal in supporting Ron Paul, to get back to some semblence of what the USA used to be, if that is possible.

"Prevent invasion" sounds suspiciously like a euphemism for something less defensible to me.

How is telling me whom I can and can't have on my own property one of the most basic functions of government?

And I'm still not clear on what's wrong with my earlier point. If the only thing that's wrong with illegal immigration is the fact that it's illegal, and immigration itself is not wrong, then wouldn't simply making it legal solve the problem?

AJ187
09-11-2011, 11:44 AM
Paul was the only one with the guts to mention the drug war that has ruined the Mexican economy and aided in the instability of their government due to corruption. It was also our aggressive foreign policy in Columbia that moved distribution to Mexico. Illegal immigration is a complex problem, much more complex than setting up fences, roadblocks, watch towers or landmines. I would hope those that frequent this forum would have the foresight to see that.

Tod
09-11-2011, 11:59 AM
So......just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?

His official campaign site says: "Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws" but at the debate it kind of sounded like he wasn't so hot on making the border impermeable.

I'm confused.

erowe1
09-11-2011, 12:05 PM
So......just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?

His official campaign site says: "Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws" but at the debate it kind of sounded like he wasn't so hot on making the border impermeable.

I'm confused.

Making the border impermeable is not possible. Anyone who says they're for that might as well be for making us all immortal.

I think the key phrase in the quote you give is "her own." In other words, no supranational entity should exist that dictates to the USA what its immigration laws should be. Similarly, the American taxpayer should not be funding the guarding of the borders of Iraq.

AlexMerced
09-11-2011, 12:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyp4r_X9AsA

WilliamC
09-11-2011, 12:18 PM
"Prevent invasion" sounds suspiciously like a euphemism for something less defensible to me.

Which is why I suggest you have a problem with definitions.



How is telling me whom I can and can't have on my own property one of the most basic functions of government?

I didn't realize that you owned all the property along the borders of the USA.

My bad.

/sarc.


And I'm still not clear on what's wrong with my earlier point. If the only thing that's wrong with illegal immigration is the fact that it's illegal, and immigration itself is not wrong, then wouldn't simply making it legal solve the problem?

Your lack of clarity is probably due to that problem with definitions.

Probably.

erowe1
09-11-2011, 12:25 PM
I didn't realize that you owned all the property along the borders of the USA.


I don't. But I do own some property. And I asked you why you think it is a most basic function of the federal government to tell me whom I can and can't allow on my property? That is what you meant by "prevent invasion." Right?

If that is not what you meant, then perhaps whatever you meant by "prevent invasion" actually has nothing to do with immigration.

Immigration laws, after all, don't just have to do with crossing the border, but also with whether or not someone can be anywhere in the USA, including on my own property.

Tod
09-11-2011, 12:28 PM
Making the border impermeable is not possible. Anyone who says they're for that might as well be for making us all immortal.

I think the key phrase in the quote you give is "her own." In other words, no supranational entity should exist that dictates to the USA what its immigration laws should be. Similarly, the American taxpayer should not be funding the guarding of the borders of Iraq.

I agree with your last sentence and find it consistent with Dr. Paul's statements on that issue.

So....what does "Enforce border security" mean then?

erowe1
09-11-2011, 12:32 PM
I agree with your last sentence and find it consistent with Dr. Paul's statements on that issue.

So....what does "Enforce border security" mean then?

I'm not sure what kind of restrictions on border crossing Ron Paul would support. I know he doesn't support laws that tell American employers they can only hire people whom the government approves to be allowed to work here.

I assume that enforcing border security includes repelling military attacks.

Tarzan
09-11-2011, 12:37 PM
I agree with your last sentence and find it consistent with Dr. Paul's statements on that issue.

So....what does "Enforce border security" mean then?

I would warn you about accepting the definitions of certain members on this forum. There is a wide range of opinion on this and other issues. Not all of them reflect that of Ron Paul. On this issue you see the Anarchist/Libertarian view that the borders should be open and anything goes. Go to the source whenever you have a question as to Ron Paul's stance on any given issue. They are well documented and easy to find:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRECI5VPTRc

erowe1
09-11-2011, 12:42 PM
I would warn you about accepting the definitions of certain members on this forum. There is a wide range of opinion on this and other issues. Not all of them reflect that of Ron Paul. On this issue you see the Anarchist/Libertarian view that the borders should be open and anything goes. Go to the source whenever you have a question as to Ron Paul's stance on any given issue. They are well documented and easy to find:


+1

If you want to see a good synopsis of RP's positions on a variety of laws related to immigration, backed up by quotes and legislation, check out NumbersUSA.
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/ron-paul.html

Tod
09-11-2011, 01:11 PM
How does one confirm that a welfare recipient is or is not a US citizen?

In the above video (thanks, Tarzan) Paul indicates that these benefits should be denied illegals (and goes on to say that he would like to get rid of gov't welfare altogether although gave me the impression that complete abandonment of welfare would be something that would come later)

Also in the above video, I got the impression that illegals AREN'T much of a concern to Dr. Paul despite his campaign site's statement. Kind of mixed messages, imo.

erowe1
09-11-2011, 01:14 PM
How does one confirm that a welfare recipient is or is not a US citizen?

By requiring them to prove their citizenship before giving them welfare.

What statement does RP make on his website that indicates that "illegals" are much of a concern to him?

WilliamC
09-11-2011, 01:27 PM
I don't. But I do own some property. And I asked you why you think it is a most basic function of the federal government to tell me whom I can and can't allow on my property? That is what you meant by "prevent invasion." Right?

If that is not what you meant, then perhaps whatever you meant by "prevent invasion" actually has nothing to do with immigration.

Immigration laws, after all, don't just have to do with crossing the border, but also with whether or not someone can be anywhere in the USA, including on my own property.

I see you also have a problem recognizing sarcasm, even when denoted by /sarc.

You really have problems communicating with others, but at least you are willing to keep trying.

low preference guy
09-11-2011, 01:31 PM
I see you also have a problem recognizing sarcasm, even when denoted by /sarc.

You really have problems communicating with others, but at least you are willing to keep trying.

Ironic statement considering that you refuse to answer his question. Why should the government interfere with who he allows in his property?

WilliamC
09-11-2011, 01:43 PM
Ironic statement considering that you refuse to answer his question. Why should the government interfere with who he allows in his property?

Well he just admitted he doesn't own all the property in the USA which borders other countries, so his property must be reached by crossing a political border if a visitor is coming from outside the geographic area of the USA.

I accept that a legitimate function of the US Federal Government is to regulate non-citizens entry into it's territory, which means identifying those who wish to either visit or live here and giving or refusing permission to specific individuals to do so.

Just like I'd expect and understand that any other foreign government to have the authority to regulate my coming into their country.

If I decide to enter another country without the consent of that countries government then I'd best be prepared to accept the consenquences if I'm caught.

Now if one is a complete anarchist and doesn't believe in any governmental authority then I agree that the entire idea of borders and such is wrong, but I'm not an anarchist.

low preference guy
09-11-2011, 01:52 PM
Well he just admitted he doesn't own all the property in the USA which borders other countries, so his property must be reached by crossing a political border if a visitor is coming from outside the geographic area of the USA.

If he owns a small airport next to his house, should the government prevent a visitor to land there? If so, why?

WilliamC
09-11-2011, 02:02 PM
If he owns a small airport next to his house, should the government prevent a visitor to land there? If so, why?

Again unless you are an anarchist and don't believe any government should exist, then yes the Federal Government has the proper authority to try and regulate who comes into and out of the country. That's one of the legitimate functions of governments, and according to the US Constitution the Federal Governments authority superceeds the States in regards to dealing with foreigners.

The Federal Government has the authority to control who comes into and out of US airspace as part of protecting the border, so yes, they can prevent said visitor from landing as part of them preventing them from entering US airspace.

erowe1
09-11-2011, 02:11 PM
WilliamC, I haven't said anything against the federal government regulating who enters the country. But once someone gets to my property, then any issue of them crossing the border is moot. However they got here, they're here. Does the government have the right to say whom I'm allowed to welcome onto my own property? Or, to get more specific, if I want to hire someone to do some work for me, and that person and I agree for them to do certain work in exchange for me giving them a certain amount of money, does the government have a right to tell me that I need to get some kind of verification that that person has their permission to be in the country before I can make that agreement?

Tod
09-11-2011, 02:19 PM
What statement does RP make on his website that indicates that "illegals" are much of a concern to him?

His campaign website lists "Enforce border security" under the Immigration issue rather than the National Defense issue.

erowe1
09-11-2011, 02:21 PM
His campaign website lists "Enforce border security" under the Immigration issue rather than the National Defense issue.

OK. But how does a person jump from that fact to him somehow being concerned about "illegals"?

Tod
09-11-2011, 02:24 PM
OK. But how does a person jump from that fact to him somehow being concerned about "illegals"?

Ummm...not sure how to respond to that. What other conclusion would one draw?

erowe1
09-11-2011, 02:29 PM
Ummm...not sure how to respond to that. What other conclusion would one draw?

I'm looking at his immigration page now, and the quote I think you're talking about is this:

America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

Why is it necessary to read between the lines and think this means he's really concerned about "illegals"?

sailingaway
09-11-2011, 02:32 PM
Ron voted for the fence, but he sees these 'protections' being used in invasion of American's rights across the board. In Texas the fence would fence off the Rio Grande. We fought a war for that river. Ranches along that river use it to water stock and irrigate. They'd have to pay for special gates and have mini cattle drives with oversight by the government multiple times a day to water cattle, and similar every time they needed to adjust irrigation. Forget docks and water use. We'd be fencing off our productive use of the Rio Grande. If you lived on the Mississippi how would you feel about having your docks fenced off?

But Ron did vote for it to get other things in that bill. He just is against the idea, as a choice.

Unlike some above, Ron does believe a sovereign nation has the right to say who can, and cannot come in. But he doesn't like the fence. Troops you can use at need and remove. And he'd provide for that, by bringing troops overseas home.

WilliamC
09-11-2011, 02:37 PM
WilliamC, I haven't said anything against the federal government regulating who enters the country.

Then we have no argument.

I'm not advocating the government regulate your interactions with other individuals.

Tod
09-11-2011, 02:40 PM
I'm looking at his immigration page now, and the quote I think you're talking about is this:


Why is it necessary to read between the lines and think this means he's really concerned about "illegals"?

It really doesn't seem to me that I'm reading between the lines when his web site places border security under immigration. Again, what other conclusion would a person draw?

erowe1
09-11-2011, 02:42 PM
It really doesn't seem to me that I'm reading between the lines when his web site places border security under immigration. Again, what other conclusion would a person draw?

Maybe I'm missing something. Tell me again exactly what the conclusion is that you draw?

Johnny Appleseed
09-11-2011, 02:45 PM
If you want to live in a state of anarchy move to mexico

erowe1
09-11-2011, 02:46 PM
If you want to live in a state of anarchy move to mexico

Why is it that people always bring up anarchy when this issue comes up?

Tod
09-11-2011, 02:50 PM
Maybe I'm missing something. Tell me again exactly what the conclusion is that you draw?


So......just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?

His official campaign site says: "Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws" but at the debate it kind of sounded like he wasn't so hot on making the border impermeable.

I'm confused.

I drew the conclusion from the campaign site that Paul is concerned about illegal immigration because it lists border enforcement as something he supports for immigration purposes. He has also voted FOR a fence, according to Sailingaway. However, the video posted earlier appears to contradict that stance. So, my question is, "Just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?"

erowe1
09-11-2011, 02:55 PM
I drew the conclusion from the campaign site that Paul is concerned about illegal immigration because it lists border enforcement as something he supports for immigration purposes. He has also voted FOR a fence, according to Sailingaway. However, the video posted earlier appears to contradict that stance. So, my question is, "Just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?"

OK. To me, when you say "concerned about illegal immigration" that is not the same thing as being "concerned about illegals." If somebody said they were concerned about illegals, I would infer that they think there's some category of people out there who are somehow "illegal" and something needs to be done about them.

I would read that statement in the context of the rest of the page. He isn't for amnesty, and he isn't for birthright citizenship, and he isn't for welfare for illegal immigrants. So he is for laws against those things and he is for enforcing those laws. My understanding of the fence issue is that he's been pretty consistent. I think he has spoken about that vote before and said that the fence part of the law wasn't what he was voting for. And nothing on his page mentions a fence.

Brett85
09-11-2011, 07:49 PM
Why not?

Many reasons.

1) That many new immigrants would take away jobs that Americans have and would make the unemployment rate go way up.
2) That many new immigrants would make welfare costs go up rapidly, as many of them are lower income people.
3) We need to have a way to do background checks on people coming here to make sure that they're coming here for the right reasons. Securing our borders is the most essential part of national defense. The way to keep ourselves safe from terrorism isn't to "fight them over there," it's to keep them from coming here.
4) You would have massive problems with over population in many U.S cities.
5) You would have a massive flow of people coming to the United States that don't respect our customs or speak our language.

Brett85
09-11-2011, 07:55 PM
So......just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?

His official campaign site says: "Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws" but at the debate it kind of sounded like he wasn't so hot on making the border impermeable.

I'm confused.

I'm confused as well, and I think that many people watching the debate were also confused. It almost seems like Ron tries to intentionally turn off GOP voters at times. He's taken a strong stand on border security in the past, but in the debate it sounded like he was arguing in favor of open borders.

Tarzan
09-11-2011, 08:39 PM
I drew the conclusion from the campaign site that Paul is concerned about illegal immigration because it lists border enforcement as something he supports for immigration purposes. He has also voted FOR a fence, according to Sailingaway. However, the video posted earlier appears to contradict that stance. So, my question is, "Just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?"

Going by a voting record can be misleading... unless you read the entire bill. While some will highlight specific sections to say a politician voted this way or that way... there are often many other components to the bill. So, they may vote for or against a given bill because of all the other crap in the bill. Unfortunately, it is not a simple answer as to why he voted a certain way.

Can you be specific in your question. I know it if probably clear in your head but it is not clear to me. If you could provide specific, uncomplicated questions some folks here could probably direct you to the answers you seek.

"Just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?" For example, what do you mean by "the border issue". I am not playing a semantics game with you... I truly do not understand what you want to know. So, please help by being specific, e.g.
1. Does RP want to build a fence?
2. Does RP want to offer amnesty to illegal immigrants?
3. How would RP prevent illegal immigrants from using free social services.
stuff like that

w2992
09-11-2011, 09:05 PM
sure we could just charge $2000 each a little less than the cayote price. PAy off some debt. The constitution addresses naturalization not immigration.

Tod
09-11-2011, 09:44 PM
Going by a voting record can be misleading... unless you read the entire bill. While some will highlight specific sections to say a politician voted this way or that way... there are often many other components to the bill. So, they may vote for or against a given bill because of all the other crap in the bill. Unfortunately, it is not a simple answer as to why he voted a certain way.

Can you be specific in your question. I know it if probably clear in your head but it is not clear to me. If you could provide specific, uncomplicated questions some folks here could probably direct you to the answers you seek.

"Just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?" For example, what do you mean by "the border issue". I am not playing a semantics game with you... I truly do not understand what you want to know. So, please help by being specific, e.g.
1. Does RP want to build a fence?
2. Does RP want to offer amnesty to illegal immigrants?
3. How would RP prevent illegal immigrants from using free social services.
stuff like that

How about: Is Ron Paul interested in securing our borders against and otherwise deterring illegal immigrants and if so, how does he plan to do it?

Tarzan
09-11-2011, 10:27 PM
How about: Is Ron Paul interested in securing our borders against and otherwise deterring illegal immigrants and if so, how does he plan to do it?

OK... see if this answers your questions, there are actually three, possibly four depending on how you read the original post (I am not going to try in case I don't have it exactly correct)

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/
and the official site
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/

When he says "Secure our Borders" I cannot tell you if that would entail using strictly the INS... the military... the national guard or other means. He has pretty much ruled out a fence. I can tell you what I would do... but the important part is what Ron Paul would do.

QE Is Theft
09-11-2011, 11:06 PM
WWII we had internment camps right here in America.

For Japanese Americans.

GunnyFreedom
09-11-2011, 11:11 PM
For Japanese Americans.

For ........ Americans.

Tarzan
09-12-2011, 12:15 AM
For Japanese Americans.

Yes... and some of German and Italian descent as well.
None of which has anything to do with the border fence question or immigration... legal or otherwise.

Zap!
09-12-2011, 01:07 AM
I agree. Even though you'll get attacked for saying this here, I'm pretty wary of Ron's position on the immigration issue. I wouldn't care if Ron said that he opposed the fence, as long as he said how he would secure the border as an alternative. But he didn't do that at all in the debate, and he came across as being very soft on immigration. This was an issue that we could've used against Rick Perry, because Perry has a very weak record on the immigration issue. But Ron's position on this issue isn't any better than Perry's from what I can see. I'm still going to support Ron Paul in the race, simply because the other candidates are all so bad. I can't support one of these candidates who support perpetual war in the middle east. But I still have concerns over Ron's stance on the immigration issue, and I sent an email to the campaign addressing my concerns. I hope that they respond to my email. In all honestly, if somebody like Pat Buchanan was in the race, I would support him instead of Ron.

I agree 100%. I will take it a bit further to say that I would support Buchanan over anyone in my lifetime. His perfect VP would be the late Helen Chenoweth, my favorite House member of all-time.

Tod
09-12-2011, 09:21 PM
OK... see if this answers your questions, there are actually three, possibly four depending on how you read the original post (I am not going to try in case I don't have it exactly correct)

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/
and the official site
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/

When he says "Secure our Borders" I cannot tell you if that would entail using strictly the INS... the military... the national guard or other means. He has pretty much ruled out a fence. I can tell you what I would do... but the important part is what Ron Paul would do.

THANKS, Tarzan, that first video was GREAT!

+rep

Carole
09-13-2011, 08:37 AM
So simple-

Stop subsidizing illegals. Period.

erowe1
09-13-2011, 08:48 AM
Many reasons.

1) That many new immigrants would take away jobs that Americans have and would make the unemployment rate go way up.
That is ridiculous. There's not some limited number of jobs that when one person gets one, that leaves less for everyone else.



2) That many new immigrants would make welfare costs go up rapidly, as many of them are lower income people.
So cut welfare. Or just make noncitizens ineligible for it.



3) We need to have a way to do background checks on people coming here to make sure that they're coming here for the right reasons. Securing our borders is the most essential part of national defense. The way to keep ourselves safe from terrorism isn't to "fight them over there," it's to keep them from coming here.
We already have 60 million foreign tourists visit each year. For the purpose of making sure they come for the right reasons, why is it that these would be any harder to process if 20 million of them decided to stay longer?



4) You would have massive problems with over population in many U.S cities.
No you wouldn't. Let the free market work that out.



5) You would have a massive flow of people coming to the United States that don't respect our customs or speak our language.
Whose customs and whose language? What business is it of the government's what customs I practice in my own household and what language I speak? And if the government did dictate those things to us, how is establishing customs not the same thing as establishing religion? And if the federal government did tell us what customs to practice and how to talk, what makes you so sure that the customs you want to practice and the way you want to talk would be the ones that win the approval of your rulers?