Good News: Large majority now opposes border fence.

[erowe1]

Now 58% of the American public shares Ron Paul's opposition to a fence on the Mexican border. This is way up from what it was 6 months and 5 years ago.

See page 85 of this report:
http://www.people-press.org/files/2016/03/3-31-16-March-Political-release-1.pdf

Presumably this swing is the result of Trump turning so many people off to the idea.

[RonPaulMall]

Nobody cares about a wall per se. They care about what the wall represents. Trump is serious about immigration, and will seal the border and end the madness of importing tens of millions of third world immigrants. Eisenhower did not need a wall to fix immigration. Trump won't either. All you need is a President committed to enforcing the law.

[kahless]

No much of a difference between 2011 up to September last year. It now jumps from 48% to 58% since September. Sounds like people that oppose Trump are associating the issue with his him and therefore answering the opposite accordingly.

[Natural Citizen]

Now 58% of the American public shares Ron Paul's opposition to a fence on the Mexican border. This is way up from what it was 6 months and 5 years ago.

See page 85 of this report:
http://www.people-press.org/files/2016/03/3-31-16-March-Political-release-1.pdf

Presumably this swing is the result of Trump turning so many people off to the idea.

What were/are Ron's specific point(s) of opposition to the fence itself? Help me out here, e. Thanks.

[Dr.3D]

What were/are Ron's specific point(s) of opposition to the fence itself? Help me out here, e. Thanks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfbuALxevTU

[erowe1]

Nobody cares about a wall per se. They care about what the wall represents. Trump is serious about immigration, and will seal the border and end the madness of importing tens of millions of third world immigrants. Eisenhower did not need a wall to fix immigration. Trump won't either. All you need is a President committed to enforcing the law.

But what you are referring to when you talk about enforcing the law is worse than a wall.

[erowe1]

No much of a difference between 2011 up to September last year. It now jumps from 48% to 58% since September. Sounds like people that oppose Trump are associating the issue with his him and therefore answering the opposite accordingly.

Exactly.

[Natural Citizen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfbuALxevTU

Mm. Right. I do agree with Paul in that given a healthy economy this wouldn't be such a big deal. So, then, what's the solution to the economy? Who in the race has the best plan?

[erowe1]

Mm. Right. I do agree with Paul in that given a healthy economy this wouldn't be such a big deal. So, then, what's the solution to the economy? Who in the race has the best plan?

The free market are the solution. Cruz comes closer than anyone else to supporting that.

[Natural Citizen]

Th free market are the solution. Cruz comes closer than anyone else to supporting that.

Yeah? I've kind of been out of the loop for a while so will you provide a source that supports the claim that he'd function within the parameters of a genuine free market? I haven't seen/heard/read Cruz's solution in any depth. I'm not a big fan of protectionism/mercantilism so I'd be interested in reading what Cruz has to say for sake of review. What is his position on TPP for example? Thanks.

[erowe1]

Yeah? I've kind of been out of the loop for a while so will you provide a source that supports the claim that he'd function within the parameters of a genuine free market? I haven't seen/heard/read Cruz's solution in any depth. I'm not a big fan of protectionism so I'd be interested in reading what Cruz has to say for sake of review. What is his position on TPP for example? Thanks.

All I said was that he would be the closest. On the TPP he's been vague.
https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_Trans-Pacific_Partnership_trade_deal

[Natural Citizen]

All I said was that he would be the closest. On the TPP he's been vague.
https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_Trans-Pacific_Partnership_trade_deal

Okay. I see. Thanks.

I'll have to poke around to maybe try to understand Cruz's economic plan, then. I suppose that most of the industry that is influential in some way with Mexico's labor force are in the fields of technology and agriculture. Not sure if those industries have any influence on political/economic positions of any given candidates and whether or not they are within the scope of a genuine free market structure if there is any influence.

[thoughtomator]

Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico mainly because he wanted enforcement of the law and opposed amnesty, not because he supported the construction of a border fence.

Putting the OP's dishonest misrepresentation of RP's position in its proper context.

IMO that knowing, deliberate misrepresentation should be a bannable offense here. OP has no excuse for not knowing the truth, having been informed of it by myself and others probably hundreds of times already in response to his perpetual globalist open-borders crusade.

[MelissaWV]

Mexican journalist records 2 suspected drug smugglers scaling border fence

Might be some are less supportive because it doesn't seem to work very well.

[heavenlyboy34]

Mm. Right. I do agree with Paul in that given a healthy economy this wouldn't be such a big deal. So, then, what's the solution to the economy? Who in the race has the best plan?

Nobody has a good plan. It's not possible to plan an economy. No exaggeration-it is demonstrably impossible. There are a bunch of threads and book reccomendations about it on these very forums.

[William R]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfbuALxevTU

Not one of Ron's better moments in 2012.

[Natural Citizen]

Putting the OP's dishonest misrepresentation of RP's position in its proper context.

IMO that knowing, deliberate misrepresentation should be a bannable offense here. OP has no excuse for not knowing the truth, having been informed of it by myself and others probably hundreds of times already in response to his perpetual globalist open-borders crusade.

I don't know, man. Maybe better to try to reach an understanding on the nature of statistics themselves prior to going to extremes and banning a guy and move forward from there. I don't think e was being disingenuous. In fact he raises an important factor. One which you've inadvertently demonstrated here in the nature of your retort.

[thoughtomator]

I don't know, man. Maybe better to try to reach an understanding on the nature of statistics themselves prior to going to extremes and banning a guy and move forward from there. I don't think e was being disingenuous. In fact he raises an important factor. One which you've inadvertently demonstrated here in the nature of your retort.

This is a serial offender who has been beating this drum for years. Anyone familiar with his posts knows he is being disingenuous, he always is. Many have attempted to engage honestly with him on this subject and all have failed.

[erowe1]

Putting the OP's dishonest misrepresentation of RP's position in its proper context.

IMO that knowing, deliberate misrepresentation should be a bannable offense here. OP has no excuse for not knowing the truth, having been informed of it by myself and others probably hundreds of times already in response to his perpetual globalist open-borders crusade.

How did I misrepresent him? Your own quote says that the reason he voted for that bill was not because he supported a fence.

[William R]

Polls like this are meaningless. Sort of like they say most Americans favor a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Everything depends on how the questions are asked.

One poll never changes though

1. Should we grant amnesty and voting rights to illegal aliens.

2. Should we enforce current immigration laws.

75-25 everytime for enforcement.

There is nothing racist or anti immigrant about enforcing immigration laws.

Make a few well publicized raids. Hospitality industry, construction and agriculture. Soon employers will get the message the free ride is over.

[Natural Citizen]

This is a serial offender who has been beating this drum for years. Anyone familiar with his posts knows he is being disingenuous, he always is. Many have attempted to engage honestly with him on this subject and all have failed.

Well. As I'd mentioned, the nature of statistics are often misunderstood. And this is something that we'd likely do well to factor into these kinds of discussions where statistics are the general topic. I don't think e was being disingenuous. If it is statistically true that a large majority oppose a border fence, then, it is certain that opposition is varying in terms of reason. Could be economy, could be people don't like them thar Mexikans, could be a lot of things. Which reason for having or not having a fence is likely best widdled down to practical points where some kind of civil discussion on it could maybe lead to agreement on a practical solution. Calling people names isn't going to solve anything.

[thoughtomator]

Well. As I'd mentioned, the nature of statistics are often misunderstood. And this is something that we'd likely do well to factor into these kinds of discussions where statistics are the general topic. I don't think e was being disingenuous.

He knows well that Ron Paul's position - enforcement of the law, no amnesty - couldn't be further from his own (no enforcement, full amnesty).

If you counted them all, I'd wager you'd get over a hundred different posters here who have challenged his gross distortions on the subject.

Keep in mind that this guy is a one-hit wonder. ALL he cares about is throwing the borders wide open to anyone and everyone. Look at his posting history, it's the only subject of any interest to him. And he's been at this for years. This is a longstanding problem here on RPF.

Libertarianism is a fundamentally nationalist philosophy, and this guy is full-on anti-nationalist. He doesn't belong here.

[Natural Citizen]

Ah well. I think you're going about it the wrong way. I was just initially curious about what the common agreement was with regard to Ron's position versus Trump's in terms of those statistics that e posted so I asked. I didn't really want to get a fight started.

I'm going to go have a peach. I have some nice juicy ones that I picked up from the farmers market. Later.

[thoughtomator]

Ah well. I think you're going about it the wrong way. I was just initially curious about what the common agreement was with regard to Ron's position versus Trump's in terms of those statistics that e posted so I asked. I didn't really want to get a fight started.

I'm going to go have a peach. I have some nice juicy ones that I picked up from the farmers market. Later.

Hard to compare Ron's position with Trumps, as the latter changes his position on a virtually daily basis. However, given that constraint, I believe you will find they have common ground in the enforcement of the law and opposition to amnesty.

[kahless]

Polls like this are meaningless. Sort of like they say most Americans favor a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Everything depends on how the questions are asked.

One poll never changes though

1. Should we grant amnesty and voting rights to illegal aliens.

2. Should we enforce current immigration laws.

75-25 everytime for enforcement.

There is nothing racist or anti immigrant about enforcing immigration laws.

Make a few well publicized raids. Hospitality industry, construction and agriculture. Soon employers will get the message the free ride is over.

Exactly. I was discussing this very same subject with a friend today that incensed about how the question was phrased for this very same subject. I asked if it was a Pew that had called him but he was not sure.

He said they were specifically asking the question about the border wall and enforcing immigration laws in such an inflammatory way to lead him and to shame him to answer against it.

[thoughtomator]

Exactly. I was discussing this very same subject with a friend today that incensed about how the question was phrased for this very same subject. I asked if it was a Pew that had called him but he was not sure.

He said they were specifically asking the question about the border wall and enforcing immigration laws in such an inflammatory way to lead him to shame him to answer against it.

Unfortunately the discovery that this was a push-poll intended for propaganda purposes explains perfectly why the OP brought it here.

[erowe1]

Hard to compare Ron's position with Trumps, as the latter changes his position on a virtually daily basis. However, given that constraint, I believe you will find they have common ground in the enforcement of the law and opposition to amnesty.

Enforcement of which laws?

If you mean laws regulating who businesses can and can't hire, then no, Ron rightfully opposes those.

And Trump supports amnesty.

[kahless]

This is a serial offender who has been beating this drum for years. Anyone familiar with his posts knows he is being disingenuous, he always is. Many have attempted to engage honestly with him on this subject and all have failed.

Been there so many times already. I saw it and I was like let someone else for a change point it out this time.

Google site:ronpaulforums.com erowe1 kahless "open borders"
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aronpaulforums.com+erowe1+kahless+b order+ronpaul2012.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=site:ronpaulforums.com+erowe1+kahless+%22open+ borders%22

[erowe1]

Been there so many times already. I saw it and I was like let someone else for a change point it out this time.

Google site:ronpaulforums.com erowe1 kahless "open borders"
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aronpaulforums.com+erowe1+kahless+b order+ronpaul2012.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=site:ronpaulforums.com+erowe1+kahless+%22open+ borders%22

I take it you don't like Ron Paul's stance against a border wall.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[thoughtomator]

Exactly - what Eisenhower needed was the cooperation of the Mexican government, without which it could never have gone down.

The US has a ridiculous amount of leverage over Mexico, they are a vassal state in all but name. It would be trivial to apply enough pressure for them to cooperate, no matter how much its government may bitch about it now. We are their primary export market and the primary source of actual cash. All we need to do is say "accept these terms or we're blocking money transfers to your country" and they will have to accept any terms handed to them - and that's just the beginning of what we could do.

Mexico will cooperate, whether they like it or not. They have no choice and no negotiation leverage.

[heavenlyboy34]

The US has a ridiculous amount of leverage over Mexico, they are a vassal state in all but name. It would be trivial to apply enough pressure for them to cooperate, no matter how much its government may bitch about it now. We are their primary export market and the primary source of actual cash. All we need to do is say "accept these terms or we're blocking money transfers to your country" and they will have to accept any terms handed to them - and that's just the beginning of what we could do.

Mexico will cooperate, whether they like it or not. They have no choice and no negotiation leverage.
This^^

[erowe1]

The US has a ridiculous amount of leverage over Mexico, they are a vassal state in all but name. It would be trivial to apply enough pressure for them to cooperate

Only by doing things that are immoral and anti-liberty.

[Tywysog Cymru]

The US has a ridiculous amount of leverage over Mexico, they are a vassal state in all but name. It would be trivial to apply enough pressure for them to cooperate, no matter how much its government may bitch about it now. We are their primary export market and the primary source of actual cash. All we need to do is say "accept these terms or we're blocking money transfers to your country" and they will have to accept any terms handed to them - and that's just the beginning of what we could do.

Mexico will cooperate, whether they like it or not. They have no choice and no negotiation leverage.

So bully Mexico into paying for the Wall?

[Natural Citizen]

I think that what we'll ultimately see evolve are border controls between Mexico, Canada, and the US that will be something similar to the EU ditching Schengen border rules. That's a different direction of discussion but that's how I think the border issue is going to go.

Here is a brief bit about what they want to do over there - http://statewatch.org/news/2015/dec/eu-council-schengen-integrity-14300-12-2015.pdf http://statewatch.org/news/2015/dec/schengen-integrity.html

Here is some review - http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.be/2015/12/exclusive-leaked-document-reveals-eu.html


Largely as a result of the refugee thing and related terrorism.

Anyway. "exceptional circumstances". That's an interesting bit of language to invoke. Especially given that basic freedom for people to move comes into question. Or should come into question.


Addressing serious deficiencies in external border controls – Several Member States have recently reintroduced temporarily internal border control pursuant to Articles 23-25 of the Schengen Borders Code. Under these provisions, a Member State may not implement such controls for more than a total period of six months. A prolongation of this situation would require the adoption by the Council, upon a proposal from the Commission, of a recommendation in accordance with Article 26 of the Schengen Borders Code. Such recommendation may be adopted in exceptional circumstances to address a situation where a Schengen evaluation has identified persistent serious deficiencies relating to external border control and the measures referred to in Article 19a of the Schengen Borders Code are not effective. Where in such cases the overall functioning of the area without internal border control is put at risk, and insofar as the exceptional circumstances constitute a serious threat to public policy or internal security within the area without internal border control or within parts thereof, the period for the reintroduction of internal border control may be extended up to a total maximum of two years.

[thoughtomator]

So bully Mexico into paying for the Wall?

Sure, why not. Maybe they'll have to cut the budget for the printing office where they print up instructions on how to illegally enter the US by the millions for distribution to their undesirable population, but they can afford it.

[beergreenberg]

Sure, why not. Maybe they'll have to cut the budget for the printing office where they print up instructions on how to illegally enter the US by the millions for distribution to their undesirable population, but they can afford it.

so sayeth the Black Muslim lover

[thoughtomator]

so sayeth the Black Muslim lover

You aren't good at faking it, bro. I'm writing a program right now to parse the logs and match IPs to put an end to this sock puppet nonsense once and for all.

[puppetmaster]

Now 58% of the American public shares Ron Paul's opposition to a fence on the Mexican border. This is way up from what it was 6 months and 5 years ago.

See page 85 of this report:
http://www.people-press.org/files/2016/03/3-31-16-March-Political-release-1.pdf

Presumably this swing is the result of Trump turning so many people off to the idea. Cool we just put more agents on the border and shoot the invaders.

[beergreenberg]

You aren't good at faking it, bro. I'm writing a program right now to parse the logs and match IPs to put an end to this sock puppet nonsense once and for all.

Good luck with that lol. Black Muslim lover.

[heavenlyboy34]

Good luck with that lol. Black Muslim lover.

da fuq?

[heavenlyboy34]

You aren't good at faking it, bro. I'm writing a program right now to parse the logs and match IPs to put an end to this sock puppet nonsense once and for all.

Dang, son. You're a badass. :cool: :thumbsup:

[puppetmaster]

I take it you don't like Ron Paul's stance against a border wall. if you don't like nations then you don't like borders. A nation needs borders to be a nation and enjoy peace and sovereignty. One world folks like you don't agree. Someone like you would be ok with an company hiring terrorists/criminals due to what you call free trade. I men you can't tell someone who they can hire in your world.

[beergreenberg]

da fuq?

your little friend doesn't seem to have a problem with Black Muslims owning guns and protecting their mosques. I do have a problem with Black Muslims arming themselves and protecting their mosques in America.

[heavenlyboy34]

your little friend doesn't seem to have a problem with Black Muslims owning guns and protecting their mosques. I do have a problem with Black Muslims arming themselves and protecting their mosques in America.

Why? How is that worse than Syrian Christians protecting their churches with firearms in 'Murica? Or any other ethnic group protecting their place of religious practice?

[beergreenberg]

Why? How is that worse than Syrian Christians protecting their churches with firearms in 'Murica? Or any other ethnic group protecting their place of religious practice?

Muslims are anti-liberty. They should not have guns. They should be intimidated by guns by patriotic Jewish and Christian Americans of all races.

How come no one from this forum ever protests with guns at mosques to intimidate the Muslims fifth column among us?

[erowe1]

if you don't like nations then you don't like borders. A nation needs borders to be a nation and enjoy peace and sovereignty. One world folks like you don't agree. Someone like you would be ok with an company hiring terrorists/criminals due to what you call free trade. I men you can't tell someone who they can hire in your world.

Just because someone agrees with Ron Paul that people and goods should be able to cross borders freely, and that people should be able to hire whomever they want without having to report them to the government, doesn't mean that they don't like nations or borders or that they're one-worlders.

[heavenlyboy34]

Muslims are anti-liberty. They should not have guns. They should be intimidated by guns by patriotic Jewish and Christian Americans of all races.

How come no one from this forum ever protests with guns at mosques to intimidate the Muslims fifth column among us?

Obvious troll is obvious. Fuck off.

[beergreenberg]

Obvious troll is obvious. $#@! off.

So you're okay with Muslims having guns in America? Just wanted to be sure where libertarians stand: pro-guns for Muslims.

[Natural Citizen]

Why? How is that worse than Syrian Christians protecting their churches with firearms in 'Murica? Or any other ethnic group protecting their place of religious practice?

Relevant reading - World summit of Christian leaders to gather in Moscow in October to support persecuted Christians (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?468924-Some-interesting-geo-political-stuff&p=6187165&viewfull=1#post6187165)

So, then, maybe persecuted religious groups to have a recognized sovereign right of self-defense if no substantial help was forthcoming.

[heavenlyboy34]

So you're okay with Muslims having guns in America? Just wanted to be sure where libertarians stand: pro-guns for Muslims.

I'm pro-gun for everyone. The problem only arises when people hurt other people with their guns. This is the only position consistent with libertarianism.(and Christianity, for that matter)

[William R]

Might be some are less supportive because it doesn't seem to work very well.

go to San Diego. The fence has been working for years.

[William R]

Just because someone agrees with Ron Paul that people and goods should be able to cross borders freely, and that people should be able to hire whomever they want without having to report them to the government, doesn't mean that they don't like nations or borders or that they're one-worlders.

Of course Ron Paul doesn't believe people should be able to cross our borders freely

[Tywysog Cymru]

Sure, why not. Maybe they'll have to cut the budget for the printing office where they print up instructions on how to illegally enter the US by the millions for distribution to their undesirable population, but they can afford it.

Remember when Ron Paul said that we should treat other countries like we would want them to treat us? Forcing other countries to pay for American construction projects runs contrary to that idea.

[William R]

Ron Paul: Nation's Hospitals 'Under Siege' in Immigration Crisis


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Ron-Paul-health-crisis-border/2014/07/02/id/580602/

[erowe1]

Of course Ron Paul doesn't believe people should be able to cross our borders freely

Yes he does. All of his prescriptions dealing with immigration call for less government interference, never more.

He is against a wall. He is against involving employers in immigration enforcement. He is against deporting illegal immigrants.

He wants to get rid of government-created incentives drawing illegal immigrants in, like welfare and birthright citizenship.

https://mises.org/blog/ron-paul-sums-his-anti-wall-anti-mass-deportation-views-immigration

[erowe1]

Ron Paul: Nation's Hospitals 'Under Siege' in Immigration Crisis


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Ron-Paul-health-crisis-border/2014/07/02/id/580602/

Notice in that very article what he proposes as a solution:

"One of my arguments for trying to stem the tide would be remove the incentives and not to get free everything, free medical care and free education,'' he said.


He doesn't want to close the border.

[fisharmor]

Nobody cares about a wall per se. They care about what the wall represents. Trump is serious about immigration, and will seal the border and end the madness of importing tens of millions of third world immigrants. Eisenhower did not need a wall to fix immigration. Trump won't either. All you need is a President committed to enforcing the law.

Your avatar is of a man who had a serious problem with federal overreach of power.
I'll ask it again, and keep asking it until someone gives me an answer that isn't redefining the clear meaning of words.
Where in the US constitution does the federal government draw the power for the laws you're referencing?

[Ender]

Notice in that very article what he proposes as a solution:


He doesn't want to close the border.

Yep- and exactly my stance.

+Rep

[Ender]

go to San Diego. The fence has been working for years.

I lived in San Diego- you're kidding right? ;)

[Wilf]

The US has a ridiculous amount of leverage over Mexico, they are a vassal state in all but name. It would be trivial to apply enough pressure for them to cooperate, no matter how much its government may bitch about it now. We are their primary export market and the primary source of actual cash. All we need to do is say "accept these terms or we're blocking money transfers to your country" and they will have to accept any terms handed to them - and that's just the beginning of what we could do.

Mexico will cooperate, whether they like it or not. They have no choice and no negotiation leverage.

Neoconservatism doublespeak reeking in this post? Why?

[erowe1]

Neoconservatism doublespeak reeking in this post? Why?

That's thoughtomator's M.O. Read some more of his posts and you'll stop expecting anything else.

[Wilf]

That's thoughtomator's M.O. Read some more of his posts and you'll stop expecting anything else.
I know. Trying to figure out why he is calling other people not "libertarians" when he display un-libertarains values?

[erowe1]

I know. Trying to figure out why he is calling other people not "libertarians" when he display un-libertarains values?

It's a rhetorical trick. Slavery is freedom, war is peace, and so forth.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[JK/SEA]

So you're okay with Muslims having guns in America? Just wanted to be sure where libertarians stand: pro-guns for Muslims.


guns for everyone...even you.

[otherone]

Enforcement of which laws?

If you mean laws regulating who businesses can and can't hire, then no, Ron rightfully opposes those.

And Trump supports amnesty.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances2/500x/5096120.jpg