Issue: Immigration: ron paul and illegal immigration

[gaazn]

I support 90% of what Ron Paul is saying. The only thing that I don't agree with is his hard-line position on illegal immigration. Especially the point about birthright citizenship because isn't that specifically in the Contitution. Removing birthright citizenship would weaken the Constitution. Anyway, is it possible to support Ron Paul without supporting his position on illegal immigration?

[Therion]

I don't agree with him on this either, but at least it will be a big draw to other Republicans during the primary.

[RedStripe]

I support Ron Paul even though I prefer more open borders.

He is such an awesome candidate I would still support him even if I disagreed with his view on many more things.

The fact the he stands up for a set of principles called the Constitution makes him worth voting for over anyone, period.

[tnvoter]

Anyway, is it possible to support Ron Paul without supporting his position on illegal immigration?

Yes, just as some prochoice people said they are voting for him because they believe the overall defense of the constitution, he will be the much greater good.

[WhiteWhaleHolyGrail]

Birthright citizenship was added to the Constitution in 1868 under the 14th amendment. Part of the reasoning at the time was to ensure children born of former slaves were considered citizens. I think the case could be made that birthright citizenship is no longer necessary. Many other modern countries do not have this. Would Ron Paul be in favor of modifying the 14th amendment?

[Brandybuck]

The fourteenth amendment says that people born in the US are automatically citizens. So how does this square with Ron Paul's platform? Easy, he wants to amend that amendment, using legal constitutional means to do so. The fourteenth amendment was meant to correct several constitutional injustices regarding the instutition of slavery. That birthright clause is no longer necessary.

Ron Paul also says it is because we have become a welfare state that this clause has become problematic. If we didn't have cradle-to-grave largess for the children of illegal aliens, if we didn't actually accord them MORE rights than legal immigrants, then the birthright clause wouldn't much matter.

[mdh]

Sure - people disagree here and there all the time but still come together because of the overall message being a good one. I have been around the Libertarian Party a long time and personally tend to hold a far more guarded stance regarding border security than many of my compatriates in the LP. If one little issue can turn you off of a candidate or group, you'll probably never vote. :p

[Brandybuck]

During one campaign, Mayor Ed Koch of New York, said [paraphrase], "If you agree with me 75%, vote for me. If you agree with me 100%, go see a shrink!"

[Melchior]

I disagree with him on immigration also (IMO the most logical and laissez capitalist position is open borders).

But that's just one issue.

I think immigration is an issue where libertarians are split, on one side you have advocates of Austrian economics and market anarchism who want open borders because they believe it would bring us economic prosperity, and on the other side you have paleoconservatives who are more concerned with sovereignty.

[Melchior]

Sure - people disagree here and there all the time but still come together because of the overall message being a good one. I have been around the Libertarian Party a long time and personally tend to hold a far more guarded stance regarding border security than many of my compatriates in the LP. If one little issue can turn you off of a candidate or group, you'll probably never vote. :p

You have no idea how many people I've come across who agree with Ron Paul on everything and think he's the read deal, sincere and just, etc... but won't support him because of one stupid little issue (gay marriage, abortion, etc).

Like this guy: Ron Paul Sucks (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KXs6edt-4Dc) - TheAmazingAtheist

[Minuteman2008]

I support Ron Paul even though I prefer more open borders.

He is such an awesome candidate I would still support him even if I disagreed with his view on many more things.

The fact the he stands up for a set of principles called the Constitution makes him worth voting for over anyone, period.

I'm glad you support Ron Paul, but I have to say I'm AMAZED how a Ron Paul supporter could support "more open borders", especially in light of what the elites in government have planned for this nation -- a third world makeover all in the name of cheap labor and cheap votes.

Open borders in a welfare state leads to a dying nation. Leaving declining wages out of it, a recent Heritage Foundation report by Robert Rector found that the average immigrant family (both legal and illegal) cost the tax payers around $30,000 per year. And this is after accounting for what they've paid in. Having virtually open borders is a huge net loss for America, not to mention the threat to our sovereignty. The only people who benefit from the massive flow of immigrants are the employers; they can pay low wages and pass the cost on to the tax payers.

The issue of illegal immigration can easily show you if the candidate is genuinely conservative and geniunely interested in America's welfare. Giuliani courted illegal immigrants during his time as mayor and actually sued to make NYC a sanctuary city -- this is borderline treason, and a blank check to corporate America at the expense of tax payers

Apparently, Paul is drawing folks from the left because of his anti-war message, and that's great. But for those from the left, many of whom support open borders, what about the effect on our environment and quality of life?

Ron Paul has THE best record on illegal immigration of any candidate other than Tom Tancredo. Dr. Paul is in Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus and Tancredo is in Paul's Liberty Caucus.

For those familiar with the anti-ilegal immigration reform movement, Ron Paul probably has more supporters than any candidate other than Tom Tancredo (whose book In Mortal Danger is highly recommended).

I love it that all kinds of people support Ron Paul. But I believe it's time for those coming from the left to take an honest look at what unchecked immigration (both illegal and legal) is doing to this nation. Dr. Paul certainly understands it.

If you'd like to get informed, go to www.numbersusa.com and you'll find out just what the elites have in store for us if "comprehensive immigration reform" is passed, and if nothing is done to restore immigration to more traditional levels. The term "third world makeover" is an understatement.

Also, I recommend reading Frost Wooldridge's "Next 100 Million Added Americans" articles at http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frostyA1.htm for a look at what the current crop of politicians has in store for us (particularly Bush and the Democrats).

[Minuteman2008]

I support 90% of what Ron Paul is saying. The only thing that I don't agree with is his hard-line position on illegal immigration. Especially the point about birthright citizenship because isn't that specifically in the Contitution. Removing birthright citizenship would weaken the Constitution. Anyway, is it possible to support Ron Paul without supporting his position on illegal immigration?

Comprehensive Immigration Reform that is now being touted is Bush's domestic version of Iraq, and far scarier and more damaging than interventionist foreign policies could possibly hope to be.

Like Ron Paul believes, we need to restore immigration to traditional levels. If this new bill makes it through the House and Senate, it will change the face of this nation in one generation. Ron Paul opposes this treason, and for good reason. It will be the death of the middle class. As we import a whole other country we lose what holds us together as a nation, and liberal/neoconservative mantras like "diversity is our strength" are just Orwellian doublespeak for dissolving the current people and electing a new one.

I support his stance on Iraq, but far and away I will vote for him because of his stance on illegal immigration and his opposition to trade deals that threaten our sovereignty.

[DrKevorkian]

Yeah i disagree with him here too but at least he doesn't seem to be making it one of his major issues. No such thing as a perfect candidate but it doesn't really bother me too much.

[JoshLowry]

The man who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy, he is my friend.

[DrKevorkian]

Open borders in a welfare state leads to a dying nation. Leaving declining wages out of it, a recent Heritage Foundation report by Robert Rector found that the average immigrant family (both legal and illegal) cost the tax payers around $30,000 per year. .

To me this seems more like an argument against the welfare state than illegal immigration. Hell maybe increased immigration would help people realize the absurdity of it and it would die faster.

[WhiteWhaleHolyGrail]

I read an AP article today titled "They're U.S citizens; parents aren't" and it described the emotional difficulties of a family getting torn apart because the parents are deported. The children have to decide if they want to go back to their parent's home in Mexico in a violent, poor region or stay with relatives in the U.S and attend one of the top ranked schools in Palo Alto, CA.

This is tough story of splitting a family apart, but it wouldn't happen in the first place if we changed the 14th amendment to remove birthright citizenship.

[Craig_R]

I support 90% of what Ron Paul is saying. The only thing that I don't agree with is his hard-line position on illegal immigration. Especially the point about birthright citizenship because isn't that specifically in the Contitution. Removing birthright citizenship would weaken the Constitution. Anyway, is it possible to support Ron Paul without supporting his position on illegal immigration?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul344.html

why would anyone not agree?

[Minuteman2008]

I read an AP article today titled "They're U.S citizens; parents aren't" and it described the emotional difficulties of a family getting torn apart because the parents are deported. The children have to decide if they want to go back to their parent's home in Mexico in a violent, poor region or stay with relatives in the U.S and attend one of the top ranked schools in Palo Alto, CA.

This is tough story of splitting a family apart, but it wouldn't happen in the first place if we changed the 14th amendment to remove birthright citizenship.

Part of the problem is that the mainstream media won't accurately report on what is happening with the influx of illegals. The Associated Press is one of the worst offenders, and that's why you get sob stories from the point of view of the illegals. People have been indoctrinated with liberal and neoconservative viewpoints for so long, that many lack the willpower to demand that our laws be enforced. Instead of discussing specific points and taking an honest look at what is the largest trojan horse invasion in the history of the planet, we get watered down rhetoric about how inhumane it is to enforce the laws on the books.

The 14th Amendment must be clarified. Too many take advantage of our generosity. And with politicians like Bush who only see America as a proposition nation, and not a real place, any hope of preserving traditional America is sinking.
The neoconservative sees us as only consumers, not as people with any investment in kilth or kin. It is taboo to point out that some groups of people may never fully assimilate into America (and I bet a lot of anti-war leftists who just read that are put off). But we are going to, at some point, have to have an honest discussion as a nation about what kind of country we're going to be. And we can't truly be a color blind society when minorities are allowed to have an investment in their ethnic identity and Anglos aren't. This is one area where Tom Tancredo was right when he said we should abolish the ethnic based caucuses. They are divisive, and it is utterly hypocritical if our goal truly is to be a color blind society of Americans rather than hyphenated Americans.

A major part of the problem, and why we haven't really tried to deal with the third world invasion is because of the ethnic lobbies and their power in Washington. Unchecked immigration leads to balkanization. If you look at www.numbersusa.com Ron Paul supports reducing legal immigration to traditional levels. It is actually a tradition to take a break from high immigration levels. Our last such break was between 1920 and 1965, and it allowed the melting pot to work its magic. It is that time again. The melting pot is broken. It's time to fix it. For too long we've allowed neocons and liberals to preach to us about the wonders of multiculturalism, and we've forgotten about unity and the melting pot and what it means to be only an American rather than a hyphenated American.

[Minuteman2008]

To me this seems more like an argument against the welfare state than illegal immigration. Hell maybe increased immigration would help people realize the absurdity of it and it would die faster.

Um, okay. The planet adds a net of 80 million people per year, mostly in "developing" countries. We cannot possibly make a dent in this, but we can, with open borders, destroy our own nation. You REALLY need to watch this video from www.numberusa.com to see where we're headed if we don't take a break from immigration. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=numbersusa&hl=en

I'd love to hear people's reactions who to this video. Roy Beck, who made the video, is an environmentalist who talks about the numbers of people we're importing. Our native born are only reproducing at replacement levels, but our population is exploding because of immigration. This is a disaster in the making. I know some people have some type of open borders ideal because of their libertarian beliefs, but we have to take an honest look at this from the stand point of the kind of government we actually have, and from the standpoint of how population growth affects our quality of life. Please watch the video and decide for yourself. Yes, Iraq is an important issue, but it pales in comparison to what we're facing with virtually open borders.

[Minuteman2008]

I'll shut up after this, but this article explains Paul's beliefs on immigration very well.

The Immigration Question

by Ron Paul
by Ron Paul



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[megiddo]

I think the position here is getting confused.

If I have heard him correctly, he is trying to split the immigration issue into two topics:

1. How much immigration should we have?
2. How do we equitably enforce immigration?

I have not heard RP say anything (to date) on point 1. What I understand him saying on point 2 is that we should have a fully enforced, equitable immigration policy. If we have quotas, they should be fair and even to all immigrants, without regard to special interests (such as H1B, etc).

Cheap labor is a world economic *fact*. Denying immigrants on this ground is denying the fact that most people work at a lower wage. That's fine. If you want to make $20 or $30 or $40/hour, you can't do it by working an assembly line. America and Americans are better than that now. You should be managing, or designing an assembly line. You should be customizing commodity goods.

We have immigration in this country because of economic reasons. That includes our liberties, and opportunity for money. We have catastrophic illegal immigration because Keynesian policies in Mexico have destroyed their economy, and socialist policies in this country have made it marginally attractive to non-working immigrants.

I justify this on the grounds that Canada has a stable economy, and their social programs are far more "social" than ours. Hence, no Canadian immigration problem.

The proper solution is two-fold. Help Mexico rebuild its economy using sound, classical economic solutions, and tie up the welfare loose ends.

[Minuteman2008]

I think the position here is getting confused.

If I have heard him correctly, he is trying to split the immigration issue into two topics:

1. How much immigration should we have?
2. How do we equitably enforce immigration?

I have not heard RP say anything (to date) on point 1. What I understand him saying on point 2 is that we should have a fully enforced, equitable immigration policy. If we have quotas, they should be fair and even to all immigrants, without regard to special interests (such as H1B, etc).

Cheap labor is a world economic *fact*. Denying immigrants on this ground is denying the fact that most people work at a lower wage. That's fine. If you want to make $20 or $30 or $40/hour, you can't do it by working an assembly line. America and Americans are better than that now. You should be managing, or designing an assembly line. You should be customizing commodity goods.

We have immigration in this country because of economic reasons. That includes our liberties, and opportunity for money. We have catastrophic illegal immigration because Keynesian policies in Mexico have destroyed their economy, and socialist policies in this country have made it marginally attractive to non-working immigrants.

I justify this on the grounds that Canada has a stable economy, and their social programs are far more "social" than ours. Hence, no Canadian immigration problem.

The proper solution is two-fold. Help Mexico rebuild its economy using sound, classical economic solutions, and tie up the welfare loose ends.

He has indeed addressed number one. By "traditional levels", he and others expressed that they want the pre-1965 numbers of around 250,000 per year, which is replacement level -- around the same number entering as leaving.




2005: Voted in favor of amendment to prohibit foreign-worker importation provisions in Free Trade Agreements
Rep. Paul voted in favor of the Tancredo Amendment to H.R. 2862 to prevent the U.S. Trade Representative from including immigration provisions in Free Trade Agreements. The Tancredo Amendment failed by a vote of 106 to 322.


I'm trying to find the bill that he voted for that mentioned "traditional" levels of immigration. He voted to end chain migration, etc. but there's another one out there (obviously it hasn't passed).

[RonPaul4President]

I support 90% of what Ron Paul is saying. The only thing that I don't agree with is his hard-line position on illegal immigration. Especially the point about birthright citizenship because isn't that specifically in the Contitution. Removing birthright citizenship would weaken the Constitution. Anyway, is it possible to support Ron Paul without supporting his position on illegal immigration?

I agree with him 100% because it is being abused. What the current condition says to foreigners is that if you can sneak into America(which is illegal) you can have a baby here and become a legal U.S. citizen. This is absurd! The clause is too open-ended and vague. It needs to be reformed or removed to avoid abuse in the future.

[RonPaul4President]

Also, I would like to add that the fact that the Senate is NOW debating the immigration reform bill is redundant. We already have clearly defined laws pertaining to immigration.

ENFORCE THE DARN LAWS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE! What good is making new laws when we aren't even enforcing the ones we have. Allowing the illegal immigrants that are here to have a path to citizenship is the worst thing you can do. It entices other foreigners to come here illegaly and hide out for 10-15 years so they too can be legal. This is a disgrace to the millions of immigrants that have gone through and are going through the process legally. It is like knowingly putting an infected bandage on an open wound to give the victims the impression that something is being done when in fact it is making things worse.

Enforce the law. It's really that simple.

[mrapathy]

for anyone interested in the reading the bill being proposed.

my concern is section 112 on page 8

page 210 doesnt sound good for national sovereignty with SPP mentioning.

most of it sounds Authoritarian good but has some bad things in it. havent read whole thing. some stuff could be used towards Totalitarian wrong.

around page 30 is talk of a commission and they get paid for by tax payers. even some freightening talk about political offiliation of the commission members.
they have a life term on the commission.

http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2007/05/19/immigrationdraft051807.pdf
326 pages long

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
James Madison

the bill has pork on the commission it creates and it favors banks and corporate/commerce elites.
sounds like new jobs in Mexico,Develope mexico add hospitals on the Mexican side of the border bring up mexico.

some of it is good. then again the road to hell is paved with good intentions

[salesninja]

I support 90% of what Ron Paul is saying. The only thing that I don't agree with is his hard-line position on illegal immigration. Especially the point about birthright citizenship because isn't that specifically in the Contitution. Removing birthright citizenship would weaken the Constitution. Anyway, is it possible to support Ron Paul without supporting his position on illegal immigration?

Considering the others that are running against him in the Primary, he's a breath of fresh air, although Tom Tancredo is also a good candidate.

[Minuteman2008]

That's the way I feel exactly too. Tancredo was actually my first choice before I found out more about Paul. I knew that Ron Paul was tough on border security after reading forums that discuss that topic. But I didn't realize how many things I agreed with him on in addition to his position on immigration.

The only other one besides Paul and Tancredo that I like at all is Duncan Hunter. His positions on immigration and trade are identical to Paul and Tancredo, but I strongly disagree with him on the war. But he is an honest conservative with the record to back it up.

[DrKevorkian]

You can point to as many neo-malthusian alarmist horror stories as you want but it won't change the fact that open borders and free trade go hand in hand. Just as freer trade enhances rather than cheapens american commerce, open borders enhance rather than cheapen our markets. Population growth is not the bane we have been told it is for over 150 years. In fact history has shown that population growth (e.g. 50's and 60's) is correlated with higher prosperity for the people.

Saying that illegal immigrants break the law and thus must not be rewarded is circular reasoning. The law is justified because if we repealed it we would be rewarding those who broke it? Its absurd. Illegal immigrants are only illegal in the same way marijuana is illegal. If you believe both should be illegal its not absurd to 'reward' them with legality.

[rpliving]

"The immigration problem fundamentally is a welfare state problem. Some illegal immigrants – certainly not all – receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself. Since we have accepted a permanent welfare state, however, we cannot be surprised when some freeloaders and criminals are attracted to our shores. Welfare muddies the question of why immigrants want to come here."
Ron Paul

I'm going to have to agree with that. If we didnt have all this welfare it wouldnt be much of a problem.

[austinphish]

You have no idea how many people I've come across who agree with Ron Paul on everything and think he's the read deal, sincere and just, etc... but won't support him because of one stupid little issue (gay marriage, abortion, etc).

Like this guy: Ron Paul Sucks (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KXs6edt-4Dc) - TheAmazingAtheist

Don't post links to a loser like that. It only gets him more views - geez. Just my 2 cents.:D

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I support 90% of what Ron Paul is saying. The only thing that I don't agree with is his hard-line position on illegal immigration. Especially the point about birthright citizenship because isn't that specifically in the Contitution. Removing birthright citizenship would weaken the Constitution. Anyway, is it possible to support Ron Paul without supporting his position on illegal immigration?

Birthright abortion is in the constitution?

Ron Paul believes: That we should enforce the laws on the books as we reform immigration. Sensible policies. He doesn't want a completely closed down borders, he wants sensible immigration reform.

Maybe with less government and elimination of incentives to why they rush here in the frst place, I believe that he wants to guard the borders mostly because we're not really liked too much around the world due to the Neo-Con foreign policies, so he wants to protect the US from "blowback."

[DrKevorkian]

Birthright abortion is in the constitution?



hahaha

[JosephTheLibertarian]

typo lol

[angelatc]

You can point to as many neo-malthusian alarmist horror stories as you want but it won't change the fact that open borders and free trade go hand in hand. Just as freer trade enhances rather than cheapens american commerce, open borders enhance rather than cheapen our markets. Population growth is not the bane we have been told it is for over 150 years. In fact history has shown that population growth (e.g. 50's and 60's) is correlated with higher prosperity for the people.

Saying that illegal immigrants break the law and thus must not be rewarded is circular reasoning. The law is justified because if we repealed it we would be rewarding those who broke it? Its absurd. Illegal immigrants are only illegal in the same way marijuana is illegal. If you believe both should be illegal its not absurd to 'reward' them with legality.

Unless we can bring back manufacturing, the correlation to the markets of the 50's and '60's are moot.

I respectfully disagree, because I believe in "Fair Trade" not "Free Trade." We simply can't compete with labor rates of the third world.

I had a friend, a PhD, that worked as a nationally respected research assistant in India with a scientist that was nominated for a Nobel prize. She made $12,500.00 American dollars per year.

If we keep flooding our own market with cheap laboe, we're going to end up like Germany. Very very few people can afford to own houses - most just rent their quarters. There are worse scenarios - it's not as horrid as the tar shacks of Brazil, but I like the American dream of home ownership. I'm not quite ready to hand it over to the elitists, even if we middle classers have to go back to cleaning our own toilets and mowing our own yards.

If the law was repealed we would indeed be rewarding those who broke it, at the expense of the people who didn't. There are millions of people who filled out their forms and waited to be called. I learned in Kindergarten that jumping the queue was rude. In this case, it shouldn't be condoned.

[Anne]

Considering the others that are running against him in the Primary, he's a breath of fresh air, although Tom Tancredo is also a good candidate.

Tancredo is tough on the borders but he doesn't believe in evolution and that one is my "sticking point" as to whether I'll vote for a candidate. Ron Paul believes in evolution so he is by far the better choice.

[peruvianRP]

I'm an immigrant my wife too. Legally. I don't like open borders. If I were back in my country I would not like open borders either. I think the best way to fix this problem is this. please let me know if this works.

1- close, enforce the borders.
2 - Give work permit only for 8 years for persons already here. they can't bring their familes to live but they can get tourist visa if they prove they have enough money.

3 - Go back to your country and apply again. give chances to others. But you'll have a better chance to get re accepted. but not guranteed.

I think most immigrants like to work and get good money and send back home but they dont make enough to support a family here. if they bring their family it will just be a burden to the economy and to other people.

[DrKevorkian]

I respectfully disagree, because I believe in "Fair Trade" not "Free Trade." We simply can't compete with labor rates of the third world.


Well despite the fact that 'fair trade' by definition requires government oversight and is thus contrary to most of the beliefs of RP, your point is well made that we indeed cannot compete with labor rates of the third world. As such American labor is an inferior product. It is inherently more expensive for the same outcome which is completely inferior. This is not a failure of the market but rather an evolution of the market. The future of America's economy does not lie with labor which as a field will continue to dwindle as a percent of world wide jobs.
With regards to the queue, my arguement is that the queue should not exist in the first place. It is only a result of failed immigration quota policy which was spawned out of racist bigotry and has been newly justified in attempting to 'save' american labor.

[Brandybuck]

We simply can't compete with labor rates of the third world.
But we can! In economics there a term "comparative advantage". We can "compete" overall if we focus on doing what we do best, AND let other nations do what they do best. We're still awesome when it comes to innovation and capital creation. We're still best in agriculture, amazingly enough. But we're no longer best when it comes to basic manufacturing, and we need to realize it.

Third world nations have a comparative advantage when it comes to labor. But that's no reason to lock ourselves away behind walls of protectionism. The fact that Bangalore has a comparative advantage in IT "grunt-work" (for example) means that we can concentrate on other areas of IT. This benefits us both.

[Minuteman2008]

You can point to as many neo-malthusian alarmist horror stories as you want but it won't change the fact that open borders and free trade go hand in hand. Just as freer trade enhances rather than cheapens american commerce, open borders enhance rather than cheapen our markets. Population growth is not the bane we have been told it is for over 150 years. In fact history has shown that population growth (e.g. 50's and 60's) is correlated with higher prosperity for the people.

Saying that illegal immigrants break the law and thus must not be rewarded is circular reasoning. The law is justified because if we repealed it we would be rewarding those who broke it? Its absurd. Illegal immigrants are only illegal in the same way marijuana is illegal. If you believe both should be illegal its not absurd to 'reward' them with legality.


If this is the way you feel, then you already have your dream candidate in office in George Bush!

It sounds to me like the SPP (North American Union) is right up your alley.

We've had this open borders enthusiasm shoved down our throats for years now, and it stands for nothing but the idolatry of cash. Global markets, free movement of people and goods, yadda, yadda, yadda... But to the new world order globalists nothing matters other than markets; we citizens aren't real people, we're just consumers. THIS IS INSANE! What about sovereignty, family, language and culture? We are MUCH more than just consumers. But all this is washed away with this open borders ideology where nothing else matters.

SB 1348, the new immigration bill being debated by the Senate, will add over 100 million foreign born person to our country in two decades. But we're not supposed to object to the effects on our environment, culture, and heritage? This is nonsense when nothing else matters but economic growth. Sure, we increase the number of transactions, but at what expense? Americans, when given the option, would rather lower immigration and slow things down. We are more than just consumers... but again, why would you want someone like Ron Paul in office when he stands in such contrast to Bush's open borders/ NAU ideology??

[DrKevorkian]

If this is the way you feel, then you already have your dream candidate in office in George Bush!

Bush takes no definitive stand on immigration. He's a wishy-washy push-over who just wants the issue out of the way because he doesn't want to incite more controversy.


It sounds to me like the SPP (North American Union) is right up your alley.
I haven't heard of this before so i don't know the details, but supporting open borders isn't the same as supporting government unification. Again i'm not familiar with this but the concept of a N. American Union is not synonymous with open immigration.

[/QUOTE]We've had this open borders enthusiasm shoved down our throats for years now, and it stands for nothing but the idolatry of cash. Global markets, free movement of people and goods, yadda, yadda, yadda...[/QUOTE]

Free markets and free movement of goods are basically tenets of capitalism which is what RP is all about so if you're opposed to this maybe you'd feel more at home on a socialist forum.

But we're not supposed to object to the effects on our environment, culture, and heritage? This is nonsense when nothing else matters but economic growth.
You believe that it is governments responsibility to protect something as intangible and fungible as culture? Despite the fact that culture has been changing for hundreds of years and will continue to change regardless of whether we allow foreigners in or not, the idea of protecting culture is antithesis to liberty. If you want to preserve your idea of culture, move to a gated community where everyone agrees with you, but don't force your culture on the rest of us.

Sure, we increase the number of transactions, but at what expense? Americans, when given the option, would rather lower immigration and slow things down. Again, speak for yourself. In fact most polls indicate that people support immigration and thats without mentioning the economic costs of restricting it.


We are more than just consumers... but again, why would you want someone like Ron Paul in office when he stands in such contrast to Bush's open borders/ NAU ideology??
So i disagree with RP on immigration. He's still loads better than other candidates on nearly every other issue. You seem to take offense to the idea of free trade earlier so it looks like you're in the same boat.

[Minuteman2008]

WHy does RP say he's against free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA? Also, why does he mention the bad effects of masses of unassimilated people.

Stop being vague about the effects of mass immigration. People are up in arms over it. I assume you never listen to talk radio and visit conservative forums. This is the number one topic, and I've been under the assumption (based on reading his articles) that he is opposed to the current situation.

If you don't know about the NAU then you should get informed. It's one of the main reasons a lot of people are supporting Ron Paul. www.stopspp.com will give you a good start.

I can tell you that I study immigration intensely, and a disengenuous statement like "most Americans support immigration" just shows how uninformed you are, living in a theoretical bubble. Anytime attrition through enforcement is offered as a choice, Americans overwhelmingly choose it.

Again, we're more than just consumers and markets, but don't tell that to the new world order globalists....

I don't believe government should be responsible for culture, but neither should they be responsible for washing it away with a human tsunami of immigrants. Of course culture gradually changes, but not this fast... and traditionally America has always taken a break from massive immigration.... and allowed the melting pot to work its magic. But now we have elites in this nation who choose multiculturalism over the melting pot.

We'll see what happens, but it looks to me like the open borders lobby is about to butt heads with the America First crowd and the results won't be pretty.

Like Reagan said, a nation without borders isn't a nation at all.

[Brandybuck]

WHy does RP say he's against free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA?
Because those are not free trade agreements. It is pure Orwellian double-speak that "free" is in their names. A genuine free trade agreement doesn't need a bureaucracy, doesn't need hundreds of fine print pages, doesn't need cops to enforce it.

[Minuteman2008]

This article from the John Birch Society is the kind of thing I thought Ron Paul was in support of based on articles I've read by Paul. If he is indeed fine with agreeing to open borders and trade that threatens sovereignty, then there is no way I can support that. As a veteran, I can say that brave men didn't die for open borders. WIth ideology that puts commerce over sovereignty, puts everything else secondary to markets... that is not something I can support. Maybe in some theoretical bubble, but not in reality, not when I see the effects of massive immigration. Anyway, there are a ton of good article at jbs.org that I agree with. Here's one of them that mentions the coming FTAA. So you're saying that Paul opposes these not because they threaten sovereignty and American jobs, but because they're not free enough?


John Birch Society targets proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)

February 13, 2004

John Birch Society

PO Box 8040

Appleton, Wisconsin 54913

920-749-3780

Fax: 920-749-3785

Appleton, Wisconsin - The John Birch Society has launched an all-out drive to combat the globalist plan to establish a 34-nation Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

More than ten years in the making, the FTAA is "designed to unite all Western Hemisphere nations except Cuba into exactly the kind of sovereignty-destroying arrangement that is costing the nations of the European Union their independence," states John F. McManus, Chairman of the Society's New Campaign.

President Bush has endorsed the plans for an FTAA. His administration is committed to negotiating an agreement by January 2005, which must then be submitted to Congress for its approval.

Although FTAA proponents argue that the FTAA will raise prosperity throughout the Western Hemisphere, Mr. McManus claims that consenting to the FTAA will
mean "a huge increase in the number of jobs leaving the United States, a
dramatic swelling of immigrants entering the United States, and eventual
destruction of our nation's hard-won independence."

The John Birch Society has launched its "ACTIVATE CONGRESS: STOP
THE FTAA" campaign to alert Americans to what it terms "the suicidal path
being laid out for our nation."

The campaign urges the American people to demand that their Representatives and Senators reject all pressures that would have them approve FTAA membership for the United States.

Mr. McManus insists, " The FTAA is being falsely promoted under the misleading label of free trade."

Likening the pact to similar agreements already approved, he points to their "hundreds of pages of regulations in The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade organization (WTO) that have cost jobs, opened borders, and already superseded some our nation's laws."

He adds, "The entanglements weren't really about free trade at all, but rather about empowering a vast new prosperity discouraging socialist bureaucracy."

Mr. McManus believes that, like its predecessors in NAFTA and WTO, "The FTAA is poisonous bait on a barbed hook." After studying how "the European Union has virtually destroyed the sovereignty of its member nations," he is convinced that "America is being led down an identical path that will cost us in numerous ways, most importantly in our nation's independence."

If the FTAA isn't blocked, Mr. McManus contends, "Americans will end up having as much control over their lives as the people of Cuba currently have over theirs."

The John Birch Society's "STOP THE FTAA" campaign plans to enlist Americans from coast to coast who are concerned about jobs, immigration
policies, and preserving national independence, but it will also seek to arouse many who haven't yet felt the effect of already enacted trade agreements.

For more information on the campaign, or to schedule a media appearance with Mr. McManus or another "STOP THE FTAA" speaker, contact Melinda Dutcher at 920-749-3780.

-----

More "Free Trade" Follies

January 9, 1995

By John F. McManus

http://www.getusout.org

j.f.mcmanus@jbs.org
One year ago, President Bill Clinton used all of the power of his esteemed office to force an affirmative vote out of Congress for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Now, instead of the promised free flow of commerce between individual Americans and their Canadian and Mexican neighbors, more than a score of bureaucratic commissions are being established to regulate and control trade. The American people were assured that NAFTA would result in lower tariffs. But any nation that wants lower tariffs can accomplish that without creating more international agencies.

Last November, Mr. Clinton traveled all the way to Indonesia, where representatives of a newly proposed Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) trade group were gathered. The participants bowed to pressure applied by Mr. Clinton and committed to form the trade group, though they reached no agreement on a specific start-up date.

Back home, Mr. Clinton and his congressional allies from both political parties rammed through passage of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its companion World Trade Organization (WTO). They made sure that the vote in Congress occurred during a lame-duck session, held right after the worst drubbing given the Democratic Party in half a century.

No sooner did Mr. Clinton have GATT/WTO in his pocket than he was off to Miami to meet with leaders of 33 other Western Hemisphere nations. With the U.S. President waving the banner of free trade, all agreed to work towards another economic union they hope will be in place by the year 2005. This one will be called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). No one asked how trade can be free when it is controlled by international bureaucracies.



Steps to World Government

The real reason for this sudden flurry of economic agreements and entanglements is very simple: Economic union precedes political union, and political union is an important stepping stone to socialism and world government. The goal is the breakdown of national sovereignty via economics. In the end, unless all of this is stopped, the "new world order" will emerge and freedom will be a mere memory.

In his 1970 book Between Two Ages, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that America was becoming obsolete and that a whole new world structure must be created. In a nutshell, the Columbia University professor proposed a "piecemeal" development of ties among nations that would replace "already developing limitations on national sovereignty." Brzezinski admitted that his ultimate goal was "world government." Nevertheless, he would be satisfied with "shaping a community of nations," a less ambitious but more attainable step along the way.


Countering Nationalism

Between Two Ages attracted the attention of David Rockefeller, who began to work with Brzezinski. The two formed the Trilateral Commission in 1973, an organization whose own literature claims its purpose is to form "new and more intensive forms of international cooperation" and "to counteract economic and political nationalism." Nations aren't supposed to act in their own self-interest anymore, especially the United States.

It just so happens that Bill Clinton has been a member of the Trilateral Commission since 1990.

Should he forget some of what the Trilateral Commission intends, he will be helped by other Trilateralists and Insiders he has appointed to high office, such as Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Office of Management and Budget Director Alice Rivlin, and at least a dozen other high Administration officials.

Reporting on the Miami event launching the FTAA, the New York Times summed up its purpose by turning to C. Fred Bergsten, "a Washington economist with close ties to the White House." Bergsten, a Trilateral executive committee member, sees the creation of the FTAA as a way to push Europeans and Asians into the same type of economic linkage. "In short, the essence of modern American foreign policy is to create leapfrogging trade pacts," said the Times.

One indication of how wrong all of these economic ties truly are can be found in the U.S. Constitution to which our President and all members of Congress swear a solemn oath. It declares, "Congress shall have power ... to regulate commerce with foreign nations." Not any NAFTA-created bureaucracy, not the World Trade Organization, and not any of the other groupings Mr. Clinton and his team are pushing our nation into. Congress shall do the regulating of commerce for America.

Adherence to the Constitution would protect U.S. sovereignty, something the "new world order" crowd is anxious to abolish.

Source: The New American, January 9, 1995.

http://www.stoptheftaa.org/artman/publish/article_19.shtml

http://www.aobs-store.com

[Brandybuck]

Let me be perfectly clear. NAFTA is not free trade. CAFTA is not free trade. And the FTAA will not be free trade. Ron Paul is most certainly for free trade, but none of those agreements have anything at all to do with free trade. If you want the government micromanaging trade, telling you who you can and cannot voluntarily trade with, then by all means do not support Ron Paul! But fear not. Free trade does not threaten sovereignty. Never has, never will.

Here's another shocker: Ron Paul is in favor of immigration! Legal immigration, that is. Illegal immigration is a horrible mess and he is right to be against it. But if you think he is going to put up a sign on the Statue of Liberty saying "Go Away", think again. If you think he is going to round up all the legal immigrants with greencards and visas and deport them, think again. Immigration is not only a good thing, it's constitutional!

[Gary]

Illegal immigrants coming to the USA are doing their best to be good free market players. The reality is that there are jobs here - and lots of them. The US economy is growing faster than the population is. The end result is that we have demand for lots of low-paying jobs in service and construction industries - industries that for obvious reasons cannot be shipped overseas (a cook located in India doesn't do a restaraunt much good does it).

We need to face the reality of choices we have:
1. Allow more legal immigrants to fill all of the low-paying service and construction industry jobs that our economy is creating.
2. Tighten up our borders and live with the expected slow-down in our economy when current Americans are forced to do more of the low-end work at higher pay.
3. Start having more of our own babies so we can populate fast enough to keep up with our economic growth
4. Live with our current system of high illegal immigration.

Politicians know this well. However #1, 2, and 3 would all be very unpopular with voters (can you imagine a politician telling Americans to 'start having more babies!' - it actually has happenned in Japan) which is why they all uniformly avoid having actual candid discussions about this. The expedient solution is to pretend to be against illegal immigration while actually allowing it. I find it interesting that even Dr. Paul is unwilling to discuss this openly.


Open borders in a welfare state leads to a dying nation. Leaving declining wages out of it, a recent Heritage Foundation report by Robert Rector found that the average immigrant family (both legal and illegal) cost the tax payers around $30,000 per year. And this is after accounting for what they've paid in.

Of course this is true of probably most citizens as well. The bottom 50% of taxpayers only contribute 5% of the overall income tax, so it is a good bet that they are getting more than they are contributing as well. Can we use this logic to kick them out of the country too?

Or maybe the problem is the nanny-state, whether we are talking about legal, illegal immigrants or citizens.

[robert]

You can point to as many neo-malthusian alarmist horror stories as you want but it won't change the fact that open borders and free trade go hand in hand. Just as freer trade enhances rather than cheapens american commerce, open borders enhance rather than cheapen our markets. Population growth is not the bane we have been told it is for over 150 years. In fact history has shown that population growth (e.g. 50's and 60's) is correlated with higher prosperity for the people.

Saying that illegal immigrants break the law and thus must not be rewarded is circular reasoning. The law is justified because if we repealed it we would be rewarding those who broke it? Its absurd. Illegal immigrants are only illegal in the same way marijuana is illegal. If you believe both should be illegal its not absurd to 'reward' them with legality.
Of course open borders and free trade go hand in hand. That's almost true by definition. But an open border is not equivalent to unrestricted immigration. There is no evidence that massive illegal immigration has been a net positive for the average American nor is there envidence that the $20 billion/year in remittances to Mexico has made that country more stable or developed anything remotely resembling a broad middle class. The fact is, Congressman Paul recognizes that the level of immigration to date has been a drain on American taxpayers and has benefited no one but corporations that run the housing, banking and manufacturing industries. As the Congressman never tires of pointing out, the government is already insolvent. The answer to that problem is not to import 20 million poorly educated, unskilled immigrants who need services which will be paid for by overstretched taxpayers. Believe it or not, Americans once survived without 20 million illegal immigrants. The country won't collapse without them.

[JaylieWoW]

The fourteenth amendment says that people born in the US are automatically citizens. So how does this square with Ron Paul's platform? Easy, he wants to amend that amendment, using legal constitutional means to do so. The fourteenth amendment was meant to correct several constitutional injustices regarding the instutition of slavery. That birthright clause is no longer necessary.

Ron Paul also says it is because we have become a welfare state that this clause has become problematic. If we didn't have cradle-to-grave largess for the children of illegal aliens, if we didn't actually accord them MORE rights than legal immigrants, then the birthright clause wouldn't much matter.

Absolutely agree. Birthright citizenship is a key issue on the immigration problem for me. If indeed Americans are as fed up with the illegal immigration issue as seems to be the case, this should be one of the first places to begin tackling the problem.

[Gary]

Dumb question, but what exactly are Americans fed up about with respect to immigration? Is it:

a. They are mowing our lawns
b. they are cooking our food in restaraunts
c. They are building our houses
d. The are cleaning our houses

Or is the issue that Americans don't want people coming here who "look funny" or "talk funny" or "worship funny"? Or is it that they are stealing our low-paying dangerous jobs from us?

Or is the real issue not immigration at all, but one of a government nanny-state and we don't want foreigners getting our benefits? If this is the case, then why not fix the root cause - government, rather than immigrants.

Mind you, I am not in favor of illegal immigration, but rather allowing enough legal immigrants to come here and fill the available jobs. And if you think we have problems with our immigrants, go see what problems the French are having. Mexicans come here to work, not riot.

[Bradley in DC]

WHy does RP say he's against free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA?

The many thousand page trade agreements are not free trade, but more appropriately called managed trade. In the agreements high paid lobbyists from both sides hammer out special trade protections for themselves that harm their competitors that didn't fork over enough political contributions to protect themselves.

There are Constitutional/juridictional/institutional problems as well. If they are "treaties" they're between the Executive branch and the Senate, not the House.

Tariffs (and worse quotas) are taxes and distort voluntary exchange. These new kinds of trade agreements that set up new bureaucracies to protect special interests are not in our general interest.

[Brandybuck]

Mind you, I am not in favor of illegal immigration, but rather allowing enough legal immigrants to come here and fill the available jobs.
Good, then you're in the right place! Because Ron Paul doesn't want to get rid of legal immigration.

[AZJV]

Um, okay. The planet adds a net of 80 million people per year, mostly in "developing" countries. We cannot possibly make a dent in this, but we can, with open borders, destroy our own nation. You REALLY need to watch this video from www.numberusa.com to see where we're headed if we don't take a break from immigration. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=numbersusa&hl=en

I'd love to hear people's reactions who to this video. Roy Beck, who made the video, is an environmentalist who talks about the numbers of people we're importing. Our native born are only reproducing at replacement levels, but our population is exploding because of immigration. This is a disaster in the making. I know some people have some type of open borders ideal because of their libertarian beliefs, but we have to take an honest look at this from the stand point of the kind of government we actually have, and from the standpoint of how population growth affects our quality of life. Please watch the video and decide for yourself. Yes, Iraq is an important issue, but it pales in comparison to what we're facing with virtually open borders.

I just finished watching this video and I am in shock. Stunned may be a better word. Thanks for posting this link. i have always been in favor of tougher immigration quotas now i know why it felt right in my gut.
Keep in mind while watching this 13 min. video that he is talking only about legal immigration. I can't imagine what the chart would look like if he factored in the millions of illegals that are flooding across our borders.
Folks, this is a must watch video!!! God bless Ron Paul for talking "common sense" on this issue.

[RonPaul4President]

WHy does RP say he's against free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA?

Because they erode America's already weakened sovereignty, security, and tranquility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prtR-h8oKqU

[drinkbleach]

NAFTA, CAFTA, and the NAU will erode the U.S.' wealth and stability.

[Seadeus]

A Constitutional Amendment is not required to stop birthright citizenship. In the records of the 14th Amendment debate, it was clear that only children born to parents subject to the jurisdiction of the US(legally here) were covered. It was even explicitly stated by the drafters of the 14th Amendment that it was not intended to change any law.

What is required is a clarification by the Supreme Court, which with the records (valid legal authority) of the 14th Amendment clearly side with Ron Paul's position. The Supreme Court has never actually addressed the issue with regards to a child born of parents here illegally.

[MaxDeMarzi]

Illegal Immigrants are a scapegoat.

The US GDP is 13 Trillion.
The US spends 14.8% of it's GDP toward welfare.
That's 1.96 Trillion Dollars.
There are claims made that Illegal Immigrants cost between 25 and 50 Billion dollars.
50 Billion out of almost 2 Trillion is 2.5%.
2.5% out of the whole pie is very little... but that's still alot going to some 30 Million people until you consider that Corporate Welfare is 92 Billion. Almost twice as much... going not to poor illegal immigrants, but rather a few BIG RICH CORPORATIONS.

Get rid of the Welfare State... that's the disease.

Regards,
Max

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230

[1000-points-of-fright]

A Constitutional Amendment is not required to stop birthright citizenship. In the records of the 14th Amendment debate, it was clear that only children born to parents subject to the jurisdiction of the US(legally here) were covered. It was even explicitly stated by the drafters of the 14th Amendment that it was not intended to change any law.

What is required is a clarification by the Supreme Court, which with the records (valid legal authority) of the 14th Amendment clearly side with Ron Paul's position. The Supreme Court has never actually addressed the issue with regards to a child born of parents here illegally.


That's exactly what I was thinking. Children born here to LEGAL immigrants should be automatic citizens. I would think that's what they meant when they added it to the Constitution.

If the 14th Amendment can't be defined that way, then it should be changed.