Monitoring refugees?

[givemeliberty2010]

Can someone explain Rand Paul's plan (https://www.randpaul.com/news/sen-rand-paul-introduces-legislation-to-prevent-terrorists-from-entering-the-us-as-refugees) to monitor Syrian refugees? I am considering withdrawing my support of his candidacy.

[FriedChicken]

Ok, withdraw it. You're from Indiana, like me, what difference do you think you'll make? I'm sure you'll make some scathing facebook post no one will care about. Thank you for your service!

[nikcers]

The new media talking point is that libertarians hate his immigration bill to make our vetting process stricter for people from certain places that we are at war with calling it basically racist. Most people that are libertarians are more informed about the middle east and don't believe the media narratives. They know that there is no way to even verify that these people are even coming from Syria. They know that some "refugees" have already gotten through our application process and they end up finding out that they were "refugees" after they commit terrorism or get convicted of conspiracy for doing shady terrorist like activities. They know that some of these people persecute and kill people just for being a different religion. They know that some of these people are economic migrants and if we are going to turn people away and deport people at the southern border for being economic migrants then we should turn them away elsewhere.

[hells_unicorn]

Can someone explain Rand Paul's plan (https://www.randpaul.com/news/sen-rand-paul-introduces-legislation-to-prevent-terrorists-from-entering-the-us-as-refugees) to monitor Syrian refugees? I am considering withdrawing my support of his candidacy.

If you're dumb enough to withdraw your support because Rand isn't going to just let tons of welfare brats from the Middle East (most of them young men) in here to sap all of our resources and a few of them maybe blowing some stuff up or shooting people, you don't belong supporting his candidacy. Seriously, do your research or just get the fudge out of here. Get over yourself and knockoff the theatrics and melodrama.

[robert9712000]

If you're dumb enough to withdraw your support because Rand isn't going to just let tons of welfare brats from the Middle East (most of them young men) in here to sap all of our resources and a few of them maybe blowing some stuff up or shooting people, you don't belong supporting his candidacy. Seriously, do your research or just get the fudge out of here. Get over yourself and knockoff the theatrics and melodrama.

I have to agree here. I am all for Libertarian ideals, but you need to have common sense as well. Instead of just blindly thinking every situation in Life demands the same response, you need to make a rational decision based on the facts.

As much as i feel bad for the true refugees fleeing persecution, their is no way to know who is lying and who is not. As HC said, does it not seem odd that most are young men who are wanting to come over. I could more have trust if they were all women children and the elderly.This attitude that we need to help them is the same attitude that we should be the policemen of the world. As nice as it would be to help everyone in need, the safety of American citizens comes first.

[69360]

Terrorists are sneaking into western countries with refugees. This is a known proven fact. Vetting who is who and keeping tabs on them just makes common sense.

[givemeliberty2010]

Am I the only one who remembers Paul being against the government monitoring people?

[Zippyjuan]

Let's just monitor everybody. We are all terrorists of some sort.

[Zippyjuan]

Terrorists are sneaking into western countries with refugees. This is a known proven fact. Vetting who is who and keeping tabs on them just makes common sense.

The current vetting system has at least 14 layers and takes about two years to get through. About half get rejected (and most of those were not terrorists). Germany has had half a million enter their country just this year. We have suggested taking 10,000 over a decade. Odds are we won't be getting terrorists among them. (noting that terrorists like those on 9/11 can more easily enter the country other ways- like getting a tourist visa).

[MelissaWV]

I think it's a pretty valid question. If you guys can't answer it instead of saying "SCRAM!" then it is rather telling.

So can anyone explain HOW the monitoring will take place?

[nikcers]

Am I the only one who remembers Paul being against the government monitoring people?

False that is the media spin, Rand has always fought for American's fourth amendment rights, this is about vetting people better that come here before they get here so they do not need to monitor everybody here.. this is his argument against the other candidates that are purposing more government surveillance.

[givemeliberty2010]

No, his own website says after they are admitted they are to be monitored.

[Yieu]

//

[nikcers]

No, his own website says after they are admitted they are to be monitored.

No, it is false because they are not American Citizens and they do not get American rights like we do. Especially because we are at war with the crazy people that they are fleeing from. How hard would it be for a radical Islamist to hold on to an innocent refugee's little girl or son and black mail them into doing their bidding when they get here?

[givemeliberty2010]

This is like what we heard from Sens. Lieberman and McCain about suspected terrorists being detained indefinitely, except these people are not even suspected.

[specsaregood]

Can someone explain Rand Paul's plan (https://www.randpaul.com/news/sen-rand-paul-introduces-legislation-to-prevent-terrorists-from-entering-the-us-as-refugees) to monitor Syrian refugees? I am considering withdrawing my support of his candidacy.

Let me get this straight. You are considering withdrawing support from the man that has done the most to try to stop the failed policies that have helped create the environment where these refugees exist; because you don't like his proposal to deal with this no win situation that he had no hand in creating? A proposal in which he tries to protect both the liberty and security for the American citizens he is sworn to serve by limiting the movement of foreign nationals in which he has no duty towards? huh?

I'm pretty sure Randal knows that the next time one of these "refugees" or any foreign nationals successfully pulls off a terrorist attack in the united states you can say goodbye permanently to any rights you think you might have. I think his plan is pretty much common sense really and can only see people that don't believe in national borders having a problem with it.

[Yieu]

//

[Crashland]

I really couldn't care less. It's obvious why Rand is saying this. Preventing your withdrawal of support is not worth an automatic game-over for the campaign.

[nikcers]

From randpaul.com:

1) Aliens already admitted from high-risk countries have been fingerprinted and screened, pose no terrorist risk, and are being monitored for terrorist activity
I am not okay with this. I thought he wanted to protect 4th Amendment rights? Well, I guess he no longer champions privacy.

Whats wrong with monitoring Aliens? One could even argue that you should monitor Aliens because they are more likely to commit Islamic terrorism then you know people who do not follow that religion. This is his argument against the other candidates purposing blanket increases in using government surveillance to monitor American citizens.

[Yieu]

//

[nikcers]

See post #17 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485650-Monitoring-refugees&p=6050089&viewfull=1#post6050089).
So he is trying to prevent us from being spied on by allowing more spying to happen? Once a system is in place to spy even more than they already are, they will begin to extol the benefits of using it on citizens too.

No he prefers that if there must be government spying then it should be on aliens and not Americans.

[Yieu]

//

[givemeliberty2010]

Excuse me, I seem to have forgotten where I was. I thought I was talking mostly to people who were outraged when big-government Republicans started to say constitutional rights only applied to U.S. citizens.

[notsure]

Excuse me, I seem to have forgotten where I was. I thought I was talking mostly to people who were outraged when big-government Republicans started to say constitutional rights only applied to U.S. citizens.

When did big-government Republicans say that?

[notsure]

I've never heard Rand say anything about spying on anyone; he has said that we need a better way of tracking people who come here on visas or as refugees, and that we need more stricter screening procedures for admitting refugees from countries with significant jihadist movements.

[givemeliberty2010]

Maybe I should have said the defenders of big-government Republicans. I do not know (although I suspect) that John McCain said rights only were for citizens, but their defenders said their ideas were all right at least as long as the ideas, like indefinite detention, did not affect citizens.

[Yieu]

//

[givemeliberty2010]

I've never heard Rand say anything about spying on anyone; he has said that we need a better way of tracking people who come here on visas or as refugees, and that we need more stricter screening procedures for admitting refugees from countries with significant jihadist movements.

Rand Paul of all people should know what the word "monitor" can include.

[nikcers]

Well, now you have. From randpaul.com:
You mean spying on people? Regardless of whether they have a visa, are a refugee, or are a citizen, that is what it amounts to.

Well yeah, I guess if you take it out of the context of the foreign policy and privacy discussion society is having in post PARIS-GATE 2015. I guess that is honest, it just seems like you are making a terrible argument that i should instead vote for any other candidate that is purposing for more war and more spying on Americans.

[hells_unicorn]

I think it's a pretty valid question. If you guys can't answer it instead of saying "SCRAM!" then it is rather telling.

So can anyone explain HOW the monitoring will take place?

There is nothing to answer, these people are not American citizens, they are not entitled to all the damned free welfare money that they will gobble up (frankly, I don't think anybody should be getting welfare without doing some sort of work), and frankly they are not our fucking problem. If you want to play Santa Claus with tax money, you belong with the Bernie Sanders campaign.

[MelissaWV]

There is nothing to answer, these people are not American citizens, they are not entitled to all the damned free welfare money that they will gobble up (frankly, I don't think anybody should be getting welfare without doing some sort of work), and frankly they are not our fucking problem. If you want to play Santa Claus with tax money, you belong with the Bernie Sanders campaign.

None of that answers what kind of monitoring will be used.

It does, however, toss out a bunch of baseless accusations. If the OP were someone merely curious about what Rand's position on this was, this thread would not be very helpful in clearing anything up. It pretty much just plays into the cliché of Ron/Rand supporters being a bunch of angry kooks.

Do you have any idea what kind of monitoring will be used? And what safeguards are in place so the program is not expanded to unconstitutionally include citizens in its tracking?

Or will you spew some other totally irrelevant nonsense at me instead?

[givemeliberty2010]

Well yeah, I guess if you take it out of the context of the foreign policy and privacy discussion society is having in post PARIS-GATE 2015. I guess that is honest, it just seems like you are making a terrible argument that i should instead vote for any other candidate that is purposing for more war and more spying on Americans.Ron Paul stood against the idea that 9/11 changed everything, so why should Rand Paul now accept that 11/13 changed everything?

[Yieu]

//

[Yieu]

//

[notsure]

I'm all in favor of the monitoring of Syrian refugees. I think it's a terrible mistake to just let these people in collectively. This whole thing could be a cover to bring in more terrorists who will attack us to increase the public sentiment to continue expanded wars in the middle east and put US boots on the ground in Syria.

[Yieu]

//

[Yieu]

//

[notsure]

If that is how you feel, then I think you would have a very hard time arguing that American citizens should not be monitored.

Syria is not America. We are inviting a known threat onto our land. WE shouldn't be having them at all. But if we are, we need to know that they won't be a risk to Americans.

[notsure]

I'm not against monitoring; I just think the gov't has to have permission and reasonable cause to monitor or "spy" on anyone. Being a Syrian refugee is a good reason to be monitored.

[specsaregood]

Ron Paul stood against the idea that 9/11 changed everything, so why should Rand Paul now accept that 11/13 changed everything?

I guess you missed the part where Randal proposed pretty much this same bill in 2013? Hell, this was part of his standard stump speech for a long time.

[georgiaboy]

I have not heard Rand specifically state a plan for monitoring, but there are any number of existing processes we use to monitor specific individuals in this country for any number of reasons. I expect Rand does not plan to reinvent any wheels here.

And regarding moving support away from Rand because of this issue, that is of course your decision. We all have our red lines I guess.

[Yieu]

//

[givemeliberty2010]

Syria is not America. We are inviting a known threat onto our land. WE shouldn't be having them at all. But if we are, we need to know that they won't be a risk to Americans.Homegrown terrorism is more of a "known" threat.

[Natural Citizen]

Has Rand mentioned anything about monitoring them? I haven't really read anything about Rand mentioning a means of monitoring refugees. Of course, I don't come here much these days so I could have missed it if he did.

[notsure]

Okay, but I think you would have a very hard time arguing that American citizens should not be monitored, which I don't think you have done in the quoted post.

Syria is not America, that is correct but irrelevant. However, we could say, "This is America! We don't violate people's rights by monitoring them like that!", which wouldn't be entirely true in practice, but it should be true at least in theory.

It's fine to say you don't want to take in refugees, but it is anti-liberty and unamerican to want to monitor them, the same arguments you use to monitor refugees can be used to monitor American citizens, and it is illogical from a rights-based perspective to argue that refugees should be monitored while citizens should not.



Why?

If they don't want to be monitored, then they shouldn't come here. Like myself, Rand is not opposed to monitoring, spying, or wiretapping, we are just against these actions that take place without warrant. Being a refugee, from an area we have been involved with conflict in and when isis say they want to export terrorism through the refugee process; I think is a good reason to warrant their "monitoring".

[notsure]

Homegrown terrorism is more of a "known" threat.

That's your opinion.

[specsaregood]

Has Rand mentioned anything about monitoring them? I haven't really read anything about Rand mentioning a means of monitoring refugees. Of course, I don't come here much these days so I could have missed it if he did.

I would assume that his vision of monitoring would entail following all 4th amendment protections that he regular stands up for.
I don't get where people think he has ever been "absolutely no spying." He has never been that, he has instead railed against indiscriminate spying without specific warrants, oversight and probable cause.

[Yieu]

//

[Crashland]

Rand is being deliberately ambiguous when he says we should "monitor" aliens. Stop freaking out. Libertarians are living up to their reputation of being the most paranoid group, getting spooked over one vague thing when it is plainly obvious that Rand is miles ahead of all the other candidates when it comes to libertarian principles and is the only chance we have of electing a libertarian-leaning president.

[Yieu]

//

[notsure]

These are not arguments based on rights. These are reactionary appeals to emotion.

I think that if you think refugees in our country should be monitored, then you should also argue that citizens should be monitored too.

Why should I argue that? That may fit your narrative more easily; but that is not what I said or believe. I've told you already the differences between American citizens and Syrian refugees. Do you think we should allow Syrian refugees into the US without any precautions whatsoever?

[nikcers]

That's your opinion.

WINNER!!!

This guy has it right, he has to gain the support of the American public who have been brainwashed to have an Islamophobic reaction and to give up privacy after terror attacks and to support more wars they want to elect someone who will protect them from terrorists. Anyone here that is honest knows that Rand's purposal to make people feel safer is the lesser of two evils and doesn't give away American's freedoms to do it. Anyone here who is arguing against the fact that the American public has this opinion and emotional reaction aren't having an honest discussion or are framing the argument out of the context of the American politics.

[specsaregood]

Rand is being deliberately ambiguous when he says we should "monitor" aliens. Stop freaking out. Libertarians are living up to their reputation of being the most paranoid group, getting spooked over one vague thing when it is plainly obvious that Rand is miles ahead of all the other candidates when it comes to libertarian principles and is the only chance we have of electing a libertarian-leaning president.

Time and time again the naysayers have come here and spread FUD about Randal, and time and time again he has proven that he is worth our trust.

[nikcers]

Ok well I may have insinuated that Aliens don't have rights, they do. They have the right to leave me alone. If they want to come here there might be some extra scrutiny most of our citizens are paranoid and think every sound coming from a bush is a lion just because it was one time a lion and it came out of the bush and attacked their pride.

[Yieu]

//

[notsure]

LEt's be logically consistent, and look at what's been going on in Syria. Our gov't has aided and supplied these terrorist groups in Syria, and now they want to mass migrate them to the US? Eventhough isis admit they want to export terror through the refugee process, you guys don't think Syrian refugees deserve extra scrutiny?

[notsure]

The reason for you to argue for the monitoring of citizens is in order to be logically consistent.

Any precaution we take should be a precaution. Screen them if you want (but not based on their religion) because we normally do that anyway, but once they're in, if you monitor them, then you're going to have to monitor American citizens in order to be logically consistent, because the Bill of Rights does not only apply to citizens, it applies to everyone within our borders.

Are you saying we should take in Syrian refugees without any precautions?

[Yieu]

//

[notsure]

If you read the post you quoted, you would see my position on that point.

So is that a yes or no for extra scrutiny for Syrian refugees?

[liberty_nc]

The idea of no borders/open immigration and libertarianism applies to when we have reached the final stage of libertarianism, complete privatisation. Here it is quite ok to have "open borders" because a government doesn't have any property or doesn't exist at all. People determine their own "immigration" policy on their land. As long as we have a welfare state and mass public property, open immigration/no borders is a ridiculous idea.

[Yieu]

//

[Yieu]

//

[notsure]

If you're not going to read the answer I already provided, then I do not see much point in repeating myself.

Given everything that's been going on Syria, with isis etc; do you think Syrian refugees coming to the US deserve extra scrutiny?

[Yieu]

//

[Dr. Dog]

They should be given ankle bracelets.

[Yieu]

//

[notsure]

Why are you still asking that when I already answered? I'm going to go out on a limb here and quote the answer again for you, but I shouldn't have to repeat myself.



Allow me to translate that into simple terms.

Screening before they come here: OK, we do that for everyone.

Spying on them after they're here: Not OK for anyone. If you think you would need to monitor them, then don't take them in -- but don't monitor them.

Well we know fingerprint ID system has proven faulty before. It didn't stop the Iraqi refugee in KY.
You don't think Syrian refugees require extra scrutiny? You think it's safe to accept them in as much it is to accept anyone from a country who we aren't warring with? I want to know if you think Syrian refugees pose any more of a threat than anyone else or any other kind of refugee.

[Dr. Dog]

Well, then under that logic you should be too. Why not?
I'm not a Muslim terrorist.

[The Gold Standard]

Am I the only one who remembers Paul being against the government monitoring people?

That was a long time ago. Now we are Republicans, so if they want to monitor the brown folks, or kill them, or whatever, no big deal.

[notsure]

Spying on them after they're here: Not OK for anyone. If you think you would need to monitor them, then don't take them in -- but don't monitor them.

and who said anything about spying on them? You seem to be making an assumption as to what the word "monitor" means. It could mean a variety of different things.

[Yieu]

//

[Natural Citizen]

Well. It seems to me that these refugees are a consequence of our own actions. So, then, my answer would be to just change our actions. How is that? Will it work?

So, then, after we have our monumental revelation to change our actions, the theoretical refugees would just stay in their country and help rebuild the stuff that we caused to be blowed the fuck up? What about that idea?

[Yieu]

//

[notsure]

Originally Posted by givemeliberty2010
Am I the only one who remembers Paul being against the government monitoring people?

That was a long time ago. Now we are Republicans, so if they want to monitor the brown folks, or kill them, or whatever, no big deal.

Rand Paul has always been against unwarranted domestic "spying"; not against "spying" on suspects with a warrant.
This Syrian refugee business is not about the color of anyones skin. It's about where they're coming from. Are you saying there's nothing to be suspicious or cautious over with these Syrian refugees?

[carlton]

I'm of the opinion that the use of the term monitor is specifically vague. Lets be honest here, who didn't think when ISIS attacked in France that Rand's foreign policy would be attacked on all directions. Well, Rand is trying to combat that narrative by laying down some common sense legislation with a security hawk buzzword that ultimately will mean little. Rand's been fighting for liberty for decades along side his father... just the other day he said BULLSHIT to more surveillance.

Everyone just relax.

[notsure]

Neither are Syrian refugees. What's your point?

One of the Paris attackers was a Syrian refugee. How can you say for certain that none of them are terrorists who are trying get into the US under the refugee program?

[Yieu]

//

[notsure]

Once they are here, monitoring them beyond how refugees and citizens are normally treated would be spying on them.

So explain to me the "monitoring" process. How will they be "monitored"; and how does it differ from how we monitor current refugees and visa holders?

[The Gold Standard]

Are you saying there's nothing to be suspicious or cautious over with these Syrian refugees?

Probably. They wouldn't be refugees if it weren't for our government's brilliant work over there. Not to mention however many of their family members were killed by U.S. bombs or even just U.S. weapons in the hands of ISIS. I would imagine many of them would be pissed. That doesn't give anyone legitimate authority to "monitor" them. If they were worried about it they should have stayed out of their business in the first place.

[Yieu]

//

[Yieu]

//

[notsure]

Ask Rand. We're waiting on him to answer. This is important information that he needs to release.

You're making such a big deal over this and trying to tear Rand down; I thought you would have already known what's going on or how the "monitoring" process worked..

[notsure]

Based on this statement, it sounds like you are for monitoring them after individually issuing a warrant for each refugee -- of course that would have to be after proving to a judge that there is probable cause that they have committed or are in conspiracy to commit a crime. Of course, if there is no such probable cause -- and there would not be by default, then there would be no warrants and no monitoring.

Seeing as how they are migrating from a region that is a declared threat to the US; I think we could warrant them collectively. It should be a policy, when dealing such refugees.

[Yieu]

//

[Yieu]

//

[notsure]

Yieu, do you think Syrian refugees pose more of a threat than regular refugees, and/or that these Syrian refugees should require more scrutiny, especially considering all the strife we've had in the region?

[Dr. Dog]

Neither are Syrian refugees. What's your point?
How do you know unless you monitor them?

One of the terrorists in Paris was a "refugee".

[Rudeman]

A lot of lazy people demanding shit to be explained to them by random people on an online forum. If you want to determine whether something is enough to withdraw your support of someone then do the research yourself. It's one thing to ask about issues or to discuss them it's another to start threads like this.

[Natural Citizen]

A lot of lazy people demanding shit to be explained to them by random people on an online forum. If you want to determine whether something is enough to withdraw your support of someone then do the research yourself. It's one thing to ask about issues or to discuss them it's another to start threads like this.

For the record, I think my idea will work. Whatever, though. I'm going to go see if there is any stuff going on in the chat thingamabob. I heard that place was cuhrayzaay. :cool:

[Yieu]

//

[Yieu]

//

[Yieu]

//

[Yieu]

//

[notsure]

Why do you keep asking the same question that I answered multiple times? If you want to know, go back and read what I've already posted.

I don't think you have answered that question. I'm talking about Syrian refugees in particular; not just any regular kind of refugee.

[notsure]

This is not about withdrawing support so much as it is about whether people should be monitored.

I haven't decided if this is enough to withdraw my support. I need more information, such as what exactly he means by wanting to monitor them. But it sure doesn't look good -- I can say that much, and I can say why, which is why I find this thread valuable.

So you think this thread is "valuable" because it's filled with all kinds of speculation and makes you question Rand?

[Yieu]

//

[navy-vet]

War and disease epidemics are two instances when I think it might be prudent to screen incoming visitors and refugees.
I think that Rand deserves the benefit of the doubt here in that he likely knows a lot more about what's happening than we do.

[The Gold Standard]

I am making a big deal because he is saying he wants to "monitor" the refugees, which is very concerning and so I feel that he needs to answer to how exactly he plans to monitor them. We need to make a big deal over it in order to get that answer from him, so that he understands the importance of that answer.

I'm not trying to tear him down. I'm trying to hold him to a standard, because I expect better of him, and have been passively supporting him, though I actively supported his father.

Believe me, I get where you are coming from, but if someone did ask him to clarify you wouldn't like the answer. I'm planning to plug my ears, pay no attention to what he says, vote for him, and hope he was lying. If he wasn't lying, and he wins, then he got me. Whatever. I won't donate any money to spread the message of monitoring refugees or maintaining military spending or any of the things he says that do nothing but keep Boobus in a slumber. But I'll swallow my vomit and vote for him.

[nikcers]

Ron Paul stood against the idea that 9/11 changed everything, so why should Rand Paul now accept that 11/13 changed everything?

Ron Paul stood against violating the fourth amendment and patriot act provisions, Rand Paul has too, the difference Rand has described himself as a conservative realist in order to resonate better with public sentiment instead of a libertarian idealist. Rand has said ISIS/Radical ISLAM is a threat to our national security and he is going with public sentiment and not the obama administration (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/israel_the_middle_east/voters_to_obama_yes_we_are_at_war_with_radical_isl am).

[Yieu]

//

[notsure]

There's nothing valuable about this thread at all. Any thread on Rand Paul Forums that starts out with "I am considering withdrawing my support of his candidacy." should be stricken automatically. It's one thing to ask for policy positions, but anyone making such a statement as the Op is obviously trolling.

[Yieu]

//

[nikcers]

I understand that position and it makes sense. I don't know whether I would base my vote on the answer, but I still want to know.



Public sentiment can be wrong, so we should go by a moral standard, not the direction of the wind of public opinion.

This sounds like it could very well be a violation of the 4th Amendment, but we need to hear the details.

You are absolutely wrong thanks for playing, society sucks, but because it sucks that also means public sentiment decides what is right and what is wrong. If public sentiment says this then you either need to change their minds or get used to it... If public sentiment says that you can marry your cat, then meow you are starting to understand the way the world works.

[notsure]

It is valuable to discuss the moral arguments revolving around the issue. I am not here to say I'm withdrawing support, but I certainly want to discuss the issue.

There's nothing to be discussed, but speculation. From the way the OP worded his post, I don't think anything useful will come out of this thread. It was in bad taste for the OP to talk about withdrawing his support; especially when he doesn't know any of the details.

[Christian Liberty]

If you're dumb enough to withdraw your support because Rand isn't going to just let tons of welfare brats from the Middle East (most of them young men) in here to sap all of our resources and a few of them maybe blowing some stuff up or shooting people, you don't belong supporting his candidacy. Seriously, do your research or just get the fudge out of here. Get over yourself and knockoff the theatrics and melodrama.

Is Rand for turning away Christian refugees?

[Yieu]

//

[Rudeman]

This is not about withdrawing support so much as it is about whether people should be monitored.

I haven't decided if this is enough to withdraw my support. I need more information, such as what exactly he means by wanting to monitor them. But it sure doesn't look good -- I can say that much, and I can say why, which is why I find this thread valuable.

Discussion, asking for more info or even questioning Rand's position is part of a healthy discussion. I just have a problem with how this thread was started. For one this isn't part of Rand's official campaign so we only know what Rand or his campaign has said and secondly it just comes off as attention seeking. Why the need to announce/threaten withdrawal of support?

That's not to say that this topic isn't important or anything like that but keep in mind we all have access to the same info (some may be better at finding info so discussions like this can be helpful) and all we can do is interpret what he said or speculate (unless of course there is an insider who decides to speak up), until he or his campaign further explains his position.

So we can't explain exactly what he means because we aren't him and this is a relatively new issue so there is limited information on what his views are. All we can do is speculate or try to interpret what he meant, but of course that won't fulfill your need for an exact explanation.

[nikcers]

So you support moral relativism. Well, I do not. I believe there is absolute good and absolute evil, and that there are concrete morals which do not change that were given to us by God through the various religions.
What is right and true and good does not change with public opinion.

I don't support moral relativism or whatever that is. I believe that might is right, I believe that we need the Republican nomination and Rand needs to convince the voters that he will keep them safe. I don't think he is trying to intentionally increase government spying but possibly it's just a tip of a hat large group of voters that he cares about what they want too.

[givemeliberty2010]

There's nothing to be discussed, but speculation. From the way the OP worded his post, I don't think anything useful will come out of this thread. It was in bad taste for the OP to talk about withdrawing his support; especially when he doesn't know any of the details.I was trying to convey some urgency. It concerned me that this topic was not already a big discussion, so I thought people might need to know how serious this is. The very first sentence was asking for the details first, by the way.

[givemeliberty2010]

I thought very hard about whether to continue to support Rand Paul, and I decided I'm staying with him for now. The United States does not need another Clinton or Bush or an anti-Muslim demagogue. I'm not sure I'm going to donate much more to Rand, though.

[DamianTV]

With all this surveillance on both sides, one inevitable outcome will occur. Genocide.

Here is the problem tho, it wont be "Just the Jews" tho, the Jews of this country will start off with the Muslims and will extend to any that are against the actions of the Status Quo, but the exact same thing will happen in the war torn nations of the Middle East and the "Jews" of that region will also start off with Christians and finally extend to any who oppose the Status Quo that exists there.

The REAL target is never the group of people that start off being the ones being persecuted, but the people like we of the Ron Paul Forums that are the true target. We represent the small and tireless minority that poses the biggest threat to the Status Quo.

[derek4ever]

With all the recent buzz about the refugee crisis hitting the USA, with most of the House supporting a pause in the refugee situation, Obama calling for the refugee program to continue its flow and 30+ governors deciding to not receive any refugees, what will be the implications? :confused:

[LibertyEagle]

See post #17 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485650-Monitoring-refugees&p=6050089&viewfull=1#post6050089).

So he is trying to prevent us from being spied on by allowing more spying to happen? Once a system is in place to spy even more than they already are, they will begin to extol the benefits of using it on citizens too.

NO. Rand is talking about foreigners. He would much rather stop immigration of any kind from the countries who hate us. This only makes sense until we get our government out of the Middle East.

[Yieu]

//

[liberty_nc]

So you support moral relativism. Well, I do not. I believe there is absolute good and absolute evil, and that there are concrete morals which do not change that were given to us by God through the various religions.

What is right and true and good does not change with public opinion.



Sure, maybe it's mostly speculation, but that is healthy and I am thankful that the original poster brought this to my attention because it is a subject of my interest that I was not aware of.



If he's for turning away Muslim refugees, then he should be for turning away Christian refugees in order to be logically and morally consistent, and not the religious equivalent of a racist.
Well guess what... Christians, Jews and Atheists aren't joining ISIS

[Yieu]

//

[Dr. Dog]

How do we know you aren't unless we monitor you?
I'm not a Muslim, so why would I be a terrorist?

[Yieu]

//