PDA

View Full Version : Should the line about student visas be removed from the new immigration ad?




Duckman
12-29-2007, 10:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-iJKwskH4

Occurs at about 22 seconds into the ad

I know there is already an active poll on the ad, but assuming it could be removed, I just wanted to get the opinion of the grassroots on whether it should be removed.

davidhperry
12-29-2007, 10:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-iJKwskH4

Occurs at about 22 seconds into the ad

I know there is already an active poll on the ad, but assuming it could be removed, I just wanted to get the opinion of the grassroots on whether it should be removed.

In my opinion, no. I think people are reading too deeply into the ad. Anyone who knows Dr. Paul understands that he's not going to govern with a heavy hand. "Terrorist nations" aren't even defined in the ad so I'm not sure what people are frustrated about.

Of all times, let's not get distracted on ancillary items. It's a good ad.

aspiringconstitutionalist
12-29-2007, 10:09 PM
Nah, it rubbed me the wrong way when I first saw it, but after doing some research, Ron Paul's right.

This is pretty much the same thing that happened when I found out RP was against foreign aid, NAFTA, federalized public education, etc. You think "What is RP thinking?!?" And then you research the issue and the Constitution, and you see it in a whole new perspective and go "RP is totally right!" lol

amistybleu
12-29-2007, 10:10 PM
NO
by Ron Paul, Dr. January 7, 2002

January 7, 2002

The terrible events of September 11th brought the issue of immigration reform squarely into the public spotlight. Most of the terrorist hijackers involved in the attacks were in the country illegally, having gained entrance using student visas that had later expired. The INS now admits that potentially tens of millions of aliens in the country are unaccounted for, many having simply disappeared after passing through customs. This in turn leads to fears that numerous terrorist cells may be operating within the U.S. and plotting future acts of terror. No amount of military might used abroad does us much good if the American people are not safe in their own communities.

Immigration policy must now be considered a matter of national security. America has the same sovereign right to defend itself against enemies when the enemy attacks us from within. Common sense tells us that we currently should not be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists, or from nations with whom we are at war. There were many fine German-Americans in the U.S. during World War II, but we certainly did not allow open immigration from Germany until hostilities had ceased and loyalties could be determined. While we generally should welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. Legislation I introduced in the fall would restrict immigration, including the granting of heavily abused student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.

We also must do a better job keeping track of the noncitizens who already have been admitted to America. Individuals who remain in the country after their visas have expired must be treated as lawbreakers. Remember, only U.S. citizens have the constitutional right to be on American soil; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. We should not tolerate lawless behavior or anti-American activities from guests in our country.

It is far better to focus our efforts on immigration reform and ridding our country of suspected terrorists than to restrict the constitutional liberties of our own citizens. The fight against terrorism should be fought largely at our borders. Once potential terrorists are in the country, the task of finding and arresting them becomes much harder, and the calls for intrusive government monitoring of all of us become louder. If we do not want to move in the direction of a police state at home, we must prevent terrorists from entering the country in the first place.

Finally, meaningful immigration reform can only take place when we end the welfare state. No one has a right to immigrate to America and receive benefits paid for by taxpayers. When we eliminate welfare incentives, we insure that only those who truly seek America’s freedoms and opportunities will want to come here.

Ron Paul Fan
12-29-2007, 10:11 PM
Absolutely not. It's been Ron Paul's position for 30 years so why would he change it now? If you don't agree, live with it or support another candidate. That's your prerogative.

FreedomLover
12-29-2007, 10:13 PM
Again...A republican in Iowa either likes it or does not care at all.

You know why? Because it's not important. A line of text for a 30 second ad cannot emcompass every single nuance about what a nation that harbors terrorist is, the types of visas, etc.

SewrRatt
12-29-2007, 10:17 PM
Overall it's a good ad, but I do think it could be better if that line were removed or changed. So even though I approve of the ad as a whole, I also approve of that one line being modified or omitted.

Liberty Star
12-29-2007, 10:17 PM
The problem phrase is the one labeling countries as "terrorist nations" and not a policy on student visas or immigration as such.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=748446&postcount=141

tsetsefly
12-29-2007, 10:18 PM
remember who the TARGET audience is...

Duckman
12-29-2007, 10:20 PM
Again...A republican in Iowa either likes it or does not care at all.

Definitely agree.... my concern is more of the dedicated RP supporters who are annoyed by this. If you read the comments on the youtube link, there are a number of RP supporters unhappy with that line.

In the other threads on here, we have RP supporters debating nuance of what is meant by that line, how it ties to previous bills RP has proposed on this same topic. I don't think it's 100% clear what RP's "position of 30 years" has been on this issue.

At any rate, it seems the grassroots has spoken, and even if "yes" won I'm not sure it would be possible to cut a new ad or worth the delay. But I think this ad will drive away existing RP supporters because of that line. I just hope it gains enough new supporters to make up for that.

paulitics
12-29-2007, 10:21 PM
I think its a good ad, and will be effective. Those that are here illegally from student visas need more screening, period. Suadi Arabia and Pakistan are two countires that are not even on the list, yet they are where most of the hijackers and financing came from. There has been nothing done about real issues on terrorism, but alot of premptive wars and curtailing of civil liberties on our citizens, which is unnerving.

FreedomLover
12-29-2007, 10:24 PM
How about this: The campaign takes out the 2 seconds that has the line "terrorist nations" in it to appease the PC whiners on youtube. Then they run the ad in it's entirety in Iowa.

There, problem solved. Can we talk about important things now, like getting third place or better in Iowa?

Duckman
12-29-2007, 10:24 PM
The problem phrase is the one labeling countries as "terrorist nations" and not a policy on student visas or immigration as such.

I believe there are RP supporters who have a problem both with the phrase "terrorist nations" and with the idea that all student visas to a particular country would be cut off rather than try to apply more scrutiny to granting the visas on an individual basis.

Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice
12-29-2007, 10:25 PM
NO should be RED and YES should be BLUE

MGreen
12-29-2007, 10:40 PM
Any Ron Paul supporter that drops their support over this line is not a true supporter. We would have lost their vote in the general election if this is enough for them to drop their support. And really, it only takes a couple minutes of research to understand Paul's position.

RP is going for the Republican nomination, so he has to appeal to conservatives and conservative-leaning independents. He shouldn't bother making his ad PC-safe to appease liberals. Granted, the language is quite strong, but Paul needs it to get more Republican voters.

Mark Rushmore
12-29-2007, 10:44 PM
The problem phrase is the one labeling countries as "terrorist nations" and not a policy on student visas or immigration as such.

^^

Jeremy
12-29-2007, 10:45 PM
I don't have a problem with it, but some people do so I voted yes.

michaelwise
12-29-2007, 11:00 PM
If it gets the good doctor talked about in the MSM, I'm all for it.

Menthol Patch
12-29-2007, 11:01 PM
Absolutely NOT! It should NOT be removed!

We need to bring our troops home from around the world, promise to NEVER attack nations pre-emptively, and be VERY careful about who we let come into the USA from terrorist nations.

Liberty Star
12-30-2007, 02:26 AM
I believe there are RP supporters who have a problem both with the phrase "terrorist nations" and with the idea that all student visas to a particular country would be cut off rather than try to apply more scrutiny to granting the visas on an individual basis.



I agree, labeling like this creates a wrong and misleading impression.

smartguy911
12-30-2007, 02:30 AM
I am a immigrant and I am voting a BIG NOO.

Hook
12-30-2007, 02:39 AM
I really don't care, but if it looses a significant proportion of the grassroots I'm against it. Looks like most people agree with the ad as-is though.
I have always been more of a traditional Libertarian open-boarders guy, but the whole issue is about #79 on my list of things I care about.

Hook
12-30-2007, 02:41 AM
A better poll would be to ask whether or not the ad makes you no longer want to support Dr. Paul. I am curious how many people here are offended by it like James1844.

Does that one line in the ad make or break more potential voters than those it offends in the grassroots?

Cali4RonPaul
12-30-2007, 02:46 AM
I absolutely love this Ad, this one and defender of freedom are really good!! I think we can win Iowa with these commercials a number 1 spot is very likely now..

electronicmaji
12-30-2007, 02:52 AM
I think it should be rephrased.

Ron LOL
12-30-2007, 03:04 AM
Doubling back on this would label Paul a flip flopper, and when you're basically campaigning as the Jesus candidate (in the sense that you're flawless, not in the Huckabee sense), one mistake like that is the kiss of death.

So no, he shouldn't back down.

Edit: Assuming Ron Paul did see the final version of the ad and personally signed off on it as it appears on YouTube, the only way he could get away with changing it would be another "rogue staffer" (see also: fleet footed) argument. Only, this time it would be a lie. I really don't think that's Dr. Paul's style. And maybe more importantly, it would make him look incompetent as a leader and the head of an organization.

TheEvilDetector
12-30-2007, 03:19 AM
YES this terminology should be removed.

From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul343.html

"The current system is incoherent and unfair. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods." - Ron Paul - September 12, 2006

I am surprised 35% of people so far who share my opinion, are not brave enough to post it.

user
12-30-2007, 03:25 AM
I'm not a fan, but what's the point of removing it now? The MSM could cover the story, show both versions, and ironically paint him as "weak" on illegal immigration to the GOP base.

einjun
12-30-2007, 03:38 AM
YES this terminology should be removed.

From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul343.html

"The current system is incoherent and unfair. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods." - Ron Paul - September 12, 2006


he also says:
Americans are quick to welcome immigrants who simply wish to work hard and make a better life for themselves.

Can't ask for anything more ..........

AlexAmore
12-30-2007, 03:48 AM
YES this terminology should be removed.

From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul343.html

"The current system is incoherent and unfair. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods." - Ron Paul - September 12, 2006

I am surprised 35% of people so far who share my opinion, are not brave enough to post it.

He was talking about legal immigrants which means they want to settle permanently in the U.S and that they are legal which means that they have met our requirements. Unless I'm missing something....

TheEvilDetector
12-30-2007, 03:55 AM
He was talking about legal immigrants which means they want to settle permanently in the U.S and that they are legal which means that they have met our requirements. Unless I'm missing something....

So if you want to come to work, you couldn't possibly be a terrorist, but if you want to come to study you could be? Illogical.

Ron Paul in 2008
12-30-2007, 03:56 AM
It took a lot of guts for Ron Paul to say we shouldn't allow visas from terrorist nations. With the problems we have with terrorism we simply can't afford to be so liberal with immigration. We need to put a break on things for a bit. If it were up to me id put a moratorium on immigration for at least ten years.

0zzy
12-30-2007, 03:58 AM
So if you want to come to work, you couldn't possibly be a terrorist, but if you want to come to study you could be? Illogical.

Student visas are much easier to obtain than worker visas, or any other visa for that matter.

Just saying.

Proceed to get stuck on this rather than working to get him elected. Or getting a good nights sleep and contacting someone responsible for this advertisement in the morning. It's okay, he only has 5 days to do good in Iowa, 8 in NH.

TheEvilDetector
12-30-2007, 03:59 AM
Student visas are much easier to obtain than worker visas, or any other visa for that matter.

Just saying.

Proceed to get stuck on this rather than working to get him elected. Or getting a good nights sleep and contacting someone responsible for this advertisement in the morning. It's okay, he only has 5 days to do good in Iowa, 8 in NH.

Well if HQ stands by this line, I guess it just means we should not be surprised if Paul uses the "Terrorist Nation" rhetoric in the future.

0zzy
12-30-2007, 04:01 AM
Also, Ron Paul is saying something that is already happening - and you guys don't even know it.

29 countries have been put under the "special eye" in the immigration offices.
They get more time and investigation from these 29 countries.
That's what Paul advocated before, that's what he probably wants still.
Total, blanket-denial is probably something he doesn't advocate.

Oh btw, about 10 people just died in the process of writing this. Maybe. There's a war going on, ya know.

TheEvilDetector
12-30-2007, 04:02 AM
Also, Ron Paul is saying something that is already happening - and you guys don't even know it.

29 countries have been put under the "special eye" in the immigration offices.
They get more time and investigation from these 29 countries.
That's what Paul advocated before, that's what he probably wants still.
Total, blanket-denial is probably something he doesn't advocate.

Oh btw, about 10 people just died in the process of writing this. Maybe. There's a war going on, ya know.

Blanket Denial is the issue here. The ad is clear in that it is a blanket denial.

How else can you interpret that statement?

If HQ wants to clarify it, they are most welcome to do so. I hope they do.

0zzy
12-30-2007, 04:02 AM
Well if HQ stands by this line, I guess it just means we should not be surprised if Paul uses the "Terrorist Nation" rhetoric in the future.

Or, or! You could contact the campaign, rather than rant on forums. And make sure to get your message towards someone who can do something, like "can you tell Kent Synder that we are very upset with the commercial, specifically regarding "terrorist nation" bit"

Not debate on forums, not vote for him (some have advocated this), and not donate money (more have done this).

0zzy
12-30-2007, 04:03 AM
Blanket Denial is the issue here. The ad is clear in that it is a blanket denial.

How else can you interpret that statement?

If HQ wants to clarify it, they are most welcome to do so. I hope they do.

I'll play politics.

"Any More" refers to the yearly quotas we have on terrorist nations for student visas. We shouldn't have "any more" than XXX amount per year, which is what we have now.

TheEvilDetector
12-30-2007, 04:04 AM
Or, or! You could contact the campaign, rather than rant on forums. And make sure to get your message towards someone who can do something, like "can you tell Kent Synder that we are very upset with the commercial, specifically regarding "terrorist nation" bit"

Not debate on forums, not vote for him (some have advocated this), and not donate money (more have done this).

If HQ reads feedback on their youtube videos and on these forums, they most certainly already know.

user
12-30-2007, 04:04 AM
Also, Ron Paul is saying something that is already happening - and you guys don't even know it.

29 countries have been put under the "special eye" in the immigration offices.
They get more time and investigation from these 29 countries.
That's what Paul advocated before, that's what he probably wants still.
Total, blanket-denial is probably something he doesn't advocate.

Oh btw, about 10 people just died in the process of writing this. Maybe. There's a war going on, ya know.

If that's true, the ad is probably inaccurate, and in that case everyone here should have a problem with it.

0zzy
12-30-2007, 04:05 AM
If that's true, the ad is probably inaccurate, and in that case everyone here should have a problem with it.

And if it is true? Would you stop supporting him with your donations, and vote? Would you advocate voting for someone else? Would you advocate that the campaign is incompetent and that they don't deserve money ?

TheEvilDetector
12-30-2007, 04:06 AM
And if it is true? Would you stop supporting him with your donations, and vote? Would you advocate voting for someone else? Would you advocate that the campaign is incompetent and that they don't deserve money ?

I still think he is by far the best, but we can't ignore that which we have problems with. Feedback is useful.

0zzy
12-30-2007, 04:09 AM
I still think he is by far the best, but we can't ignore that which we have problems with. Feedback is useful.

Ron Paul doesn't read the forums :[. Contact the campaign tomorrow morning and send the message there. Not angry, just make sure ur message gets to someone who knows something. I already sent an email to the Youth Coordinator.

literatim
12-30-2007, 04:09 AM
If HQ reads feedback on their youtube videos and on these forums, they most certainly already know.

If.

No matter what you choose to do, quit whining.

user
12-30-2007, 04:13 AM
And if it is true? Would you stop supporting him with your donations, and vote? Would you advocate voting for someone else? Would you advocate that the campaign is incompetent and that they don't deserve money ?

No, but every time something like this happens, for me it becomes less of an "ideal campaign" and more of the "lesser of evils".

Just Come Home
12-30-2007, 04:18 AM
No, but every time something like this happens, for me it becomes less of an "ideal campaign" and more of the "lesser of evils".


You're telling me Ron Paul is evil?

quantized
12-30-2007, 04:24 AM
i was quite taken aback too by that statement. what does "terrorist country" refering to? vague... no student visa?? weird and vague..

Joe3113
12-30-2007, 04:25 AM
No, but every time something like this happens, for me it becomes less of an "ideal campaign" and more of the "lesser of evils".

The biggest problems are the War and the Federal Reserve. No other candidate would stop the war faster and no other candidate would do anything about the Federal Reserve.

And what other candidate would have the guts to even mention North American Union, let alone criticize it.

I admit this position on student visa's from 'terrorist nations' doesn't seem consistent with Ron's criticism of collectivism, but it's just a little niggly issue among a whole bunch of REALLY IMPORTANT issues.

Removing the FED and all the entrenched international banking criminals would be a revolution!!!! :D

literatim
12-30-2007, 04:27 AM
No, but every time something like this happens, for me it becomes less of an "ideal campaign" and more of the "lesser of evils".

Ron Paul has actively voiced his beliefs on student visas. You not being informed about it isn't Ron Paul's fault, but yours alone.

user
12-30-2007, 04:30 AM
You're telling me Ron Paul is evil?

No.

user
12-30-2007, 04:32 AM
The biggest problems are the War and the Federal Reserve. No other candidate would stop the war faster and no other candidate would do anything about the Federal Reserve.

And what other candidate would have the guts to even mention North American Union, let alone criticize it.

I admit this position on student visa's from 'terrorist nations' doesn't seem consistent with Ron's criticism of collectivism, but it's just a little niggly issue among a whole bunch of REALLY IMPORTANT issues.

Removing the FED and all the entrenched international banking criminals would be a revolution!!!! :D

You're preaching to the choir here, I agree with your post in general. I'm not about to support any other major candidate.

user
12-30-2007, 04:34 AM
Ron Paul has actively voiced his beliefs on student visas. You not being informed about it isn't Ron Paul's fault, but yours alone.

Can you show me where he's said "no more student visas from 'terrorist nations'"?

austin356
12-30-2007, 04:34 AM
The biggest problems are the War and the Federal Reserve. No other candidate would stop the war faster and no other candidate would do anything about the Federal Reserve.

And what other candidate would have the guts to even mention North American Union, let alone criticize it.

I admit this position on student visa's from 'terrorist nations' doesn't seem consistent with Ron's criticism of collectivism, but it's just a little niggly issue among a whole bunch of REALLY IMPORTANT issues.

Removing the FED and all the entrenched international banking criminals would be a revolution!!!! :D


Obviously you have no desire to build a real political movement but rather seem to choose to live on the edge. (not that the edge is bad. people there are much better people imo)

Just Come Home
12-30-2007, 04:37 AM
No.


Well, you're free to do what you want. If you plan on leaving the movement because a student in Saudi Arabia can't come to school in Princetown because we're trying to get things straightened out here, that's your perogative.

If people like Obama's position on immigration better, so be it. Immigration is about 50th on my list of things to care about right now. Iraq, the dollar, the REAL ID card, and the move towards the NAU top my list, and things like evolution, immigration, and what Dr. Paul thinks of Lincoln are lucky to get much thought.

einjun
12-30-2007, 04:38 AM
Can you show me where he's said "no more student visas from 'terrorist nations'"?

i think he's said it before .......... i remember seeing it months ago when I was researching him ..... 'terrorist nations' being 'nations that have been categorized as those sponsoring terrorism against USA at a government level'

user
12-30-2007, 04:43 AM
Well, you're free to do what you want. If you plan on leaving the movement because a student in Saudi Arabia can't come to school in Princetown because we're trying to get things straightened out here, that's your perogative.

If people like Obama's position on immigration better, so be it. Immigration is about 50th on my list of things to care about right now. Iraq, the dollar, the REAL ID card, and the move towards the NAU top my list, and things like evolution, immigration, and what Dr. Paul thinks of Lincoln are lucky to get much thought.

That's not my plan, and I'm not sure why you even brought up Obama.

user
12-30-2007, 04:45 AM
i think he's said it before .......... i remember seeing it months ago when I was researching him ..... 'terrorist nations' being 'nations that have been categorized as those sponsoring terrorism against USA at a government level'
Thanks for the info. Can anyone link to a source?

einjun
12-30-2007, 04:56 AM
Thanks for the info. Can anyone link to a source?
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=222
There's probably an older document as well .......
I think Dr. Paul is going to get a shock :( . People suddenly objecting to something he's said for a long while ......

user
12-30-2007, 05:00 AM
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=222
There's probably an older document as well .......
I think Dr. Paul is going to get a shock :( . People suddenly objecting to something he's said for a long while ......
Thanks, at least that's more clear than just "terrorist nations".

takadi
12-30-2007, 05:04 AM
The campaign took a risk with this ad, and with all risks, they will suffer blowback. If anything, this is the fault of the campaign, not Ron Paul. If they poorly gauged how people would react to this and end up losing more support, then whoever manages marketing should be fired.

user
12-30-2007, 05:05 AM
Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department
:confused:

Aballistar
12-30-2007, 05:34 AM
Yes, the line should be removed. There is no such thing as a "terrorist nation," only individuals who are terrorists.

If we are to spread democracy and freedom, and ideals and such without using force, then education seems the best way to do that don't you think? Repressed muslim women studying at Berkely sounds like a great idea to me.

Just need to do a good background check first and see if there's anything in their past which leads authorities to beleive they have been gotten to.

Deny on a case by case basis.

austin356
12-30-2007, 05:59 AM
Yes, the line should be removed. There is no such thing as a "terrorist nation," only individuals who are terrorists.

terrorism is a tactic..... individuals do not have a monopoly on this tactic.

Revolution9
12-30-2007, 06:01 AM
Well, you're free to do what you want. If you plan on leaving the movement because a student in Saudi Arabia can't come to school in Princetown because we're trying to get things straightened out here, that's your perogative.


Bango!. I have been reading this thread and the James bye bye troll and this is what it comes down to. There is only so many seats at any given University. especially for the most lucrative or respectable degrees. These seats should be going to Americans and those seeking permanent residence for the benefit of America and her industries and research & development. Why should a Pakistani come here and learn nuclear physics and then return to Pakistan? What good does that do America? None. The possible harm from someone with this knowledge when targeted back at us is something to be considered.

As for the whining about designating various nations as terrorist nations.. Well currently I would say there are such entities in the world. Personally I consider the heroin trade financed and run government of Afghanistan to be terrorist. They are flooding our streets with cheap heroin. There have been some deaths from overdoses in this neighborhood over the summer because the potency was too high. So yeah.. they are killing Americans ( through their own stupidity but also the drug s not regulated and the potency is iffy from batch to batch..hence the need for regulation in regards to purity) and the American economy is bleeding narco-dollars. I woiuld sack Colombia into that terrorist nation slot as well. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Khazakstan, several of the African countries.

Then..they want to do business with a prosperous USA and go to our prestigious schools. Then get your countries fucking act together and be a part of the world of peaceful nations. Mind you..the USA has a bit to do as well. In five years there may be no more terrorist nations..but currently animosity levels are so high and the heat so relentless that there needs to be this moratorium. The ad is proper in stating this and it allays fears of those who have been fed fear and engorged themselves on it.. This is the first part of their diet to wean them off it.

Best
Randy

TheEvilDetector
12-30-2007, 06:06 AM
Bango!. I have been reading this thread and the James bye bye troll and this is what it comes down to. There is only so many seats at any given University. especially for the most lucrative or respectable degrees. These seats should be going to Americans and those seeking permanent residence for the benefit of America and her industries and research & development. Why should a Pakistani come here and learn nuclear physics and then return to Pakistan? What good does that do America? None. The possible harm from someone with this knowledge when targeted back at us is something to be considered.

As for the whining about designating various nations as terrorist nations.. Well currently I would say there are such entities in the world. Personally I consider the heroin trade financed and run government of Afghanistan to be terrorist. They are flooding our streets with cheap heroin. There have been some deaths from overdoses in this neighborhood over the summer because the potency was too high. So yeah.. they are killing Americans ( through their own stupidity but also the drug s not regulated and the potency is iffy from batch to batch..hence the need for regulation in regards to purity) and the American economy is bleeding narco-dollars. I woiuld sack Colombia into that terrorist nation slot as well. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Khazakstan, several of the African countries.

Then..they want to do business with a prosperous USA and go to our prestigious schools. Then get your countries fucking act together and be a part of the world of peaceful nations. Mind you..the USA has a bit to do as well. In five years there may be no more terrorist nations..but currently animosity levels are so high and the heat so relentless that there needs to be this moratorium. The ad is proper in stating this and it allays fears of those who have been fed fear and engorged themselves on it.. This is the first part of their diet to wean them off it.

Best
Randy

Randy,

I respect your wit, clarity and creative writing, but I respectfully disagree with the essence of your argument.

IMO Collectivist punishment for individual acts is unbecoming a liberty candidate PERIOD.

All the best,

T.E.D

PS. This does not solve the problem, this forces would be terrorists to seek residency/citizenships from "non terrorist nations" to bypass the system while millions who did nothing wrong are denied an opportunity to gain education in the land of the free (which they will pay for), learn about american culture, increase understanding, bring back their perspective back to their country and reduce xenophobia. Of course, to ensure that American Citizens are not disadvantaged I am supportive of immigration quotas. Its the blanket denials I have a logical and ethical problem with.

PPS. Such a stance perpetuates xenophobia and it is counter productive due to this.

Imagine for a moment that a global terrorist network issues an order to carry out terrorist acts within USA for members in "non terrorist nations"
and these members carry this out.

What does US do now? Declare more "terrorist nations", alienate more potential students? Such a result would play into the hands of terrorists, for it
would isolate US further.

I do not get the logic of this approach for these types of reasons.

LibertyEagle
12-30-2007, 06:12 AM
If it is going to bother some of the supporters so much, I think the line about student visas should be removed. It's not necessary to the ad.

austin356
12-30-2007, 06:31 AM
Randy,

I respect your wit, clarity and creative writing, but I respectfully disagree with the essence of your argument.

IMO Collectivist punishment for individual acts is unbecoming a liberty candidate PERIOD.

All the best,

T.E.D

PS. This does not solve the problem, this forces would be terrorists to seek residency/citizenships from "non terrorist nations" to bypass the system while millions who did nothing wrong are denied an opportunity to gain education in the land of the free (which they will pay for), learn about american culture, increase understanding, bring back their perspective back to their country and reduce xenophobia. Of course, to ensure that American Citizens are not disadvantaged I am supportive of immigration quotas. Its the blanket denials I have a logical and ethical problem with.

PPS. Such a stance perpetuates xenophobia and it is counter productive due to this.

Imagine for a moment that a global terrorist network issues an order to carry out terrorist acts within USA for members in "non terrorist nations"
and these members carry this out.

What does US do now? Declare more "terrorist nations", alienate more potential students? Such a result would play into the hands of terrorists, for it
would isolate US further.

I do not get the logic of this approach for these types of reasons.



It does not matter if you are intellectually correct. We need to win. Taking these stances on non-issues to invoke a needed emotional response is worth the consequences of having the wrong policy if it serves the much greater good (elimination of preemptive war, incentives for global jihad, US imperial aggression, US corporate merchantialism, and a host of other crap)

thuja
12-30-2007, 06:36 AM
If it is going to bother some of the supporters so much, I think the line about student visas should be removed. It's not necessary to the ad.

why should this ad run if it already causes such angst here? the ads should inspire enthusiasm, not anything dark and heavy.

TheEvilDetector
12-30-2007, 06:38 AM
It does not matter if you are intellectually correct. We need to win. Taking these stances on non-issues to invoke a needed emotional response is worth the consequences of having the wrong policy if it serves the much greater good (elimination of preemptive war, incentives for global jihad, US imperial aggression, US corporate merchantialism, and a host of other crap)

Then my only hope is that Ron Paul remains the master of Politics as he is now and not Politics becoming a master of Ron Paul.

takadi
12-30-2007, 06:39 AM
why should this ad run if it already causes such angst here? the ads should inspire enthusiasm, not anything dark and heavy.

THANK YOU! That's exactly what we need.

The ad before this was excellent.

I admit, the beginning of the immigration ad started out fine. People came here legally, our country was founded on immigrants, etc.

But if they just stuck to that and emphasized what Ron has been saying - that our economic policies are to blame like the welfare state, NOT the illegal immigrants who are scapegoats - maybe it would have been better.

Materialist
12-30-2007, 06:54 AM
Yes, it should be removed. I know that I've already took down the Ron Paul signs that I put up. I hope there is a good explanation, because at this time I feel embarrassed that I spent time promoting him.

takadi
12-30-2007, 06:58 AM
Yes, it should be removed. I know that I've already took down the Ron Paul signs that I put up. I hope there is a good explanation, because at this time I feel embarrassed that I spent time promoting him.

I think you might be overreacting a bit (if you are planning on dropping your support). I still hold my Ron Paul sign up loud and proud. He is no doubt still the best candidate in the race. This embarrassment should be focused on the campaign, not the man or his message

The campaign, especially its ad, as always been sparring with the grassroots effort, this is no exception. I would never drop my support though because of a dumb ad.

Ron Paul has made his immigration stance clear as day though. The tone of the ad might be wrong, but he's always been tough on illegal immigration, amnesty, and birthright citizenship since the beginning of the campaign.

I would ask the campaign to emphasize the economic implications, use less controversial imagery and phrases like "terrorist nations", and we're good to go

Ron LOL
12-30-2007, 07:04 AM
Yes, it should be removed. I know that I've already took down the Ron Paul signs that I put up. I hope there is a good explanation, because at this time I feel embarrassed that I spent time promoting him.

Way to throw the baby out with the bath water there, ace. :rolleyes:

IHaveaDream
12-30-2007, 07:09 AM
I liked the ad the first time I watched it. Then I heard everyone complaining about the "terrorist nations" thing. So I watched the ad again and I realized why it might appear offensive, if not discriminatory. Personally, I'd like to see a complete moratorium on immigration until we get our house in order. But as far as the ad goes, I agree with those who feel that the part about denying student visas goes too far.

IHaveaDream
12-30-2007, 07:15 AM
Yes, it should be removed. I know that I've already took down the Ron Paul signs that I put up. I hope there is a good explanation, because at this time I feel embarrassed that I spent time promoting him.

So who WILL you support? Ron Paul is still far better than anyone else in the race. Besides, he hasn't even been given an opportunity to respond yet. He often takes positions that make people gasp, but then goes on to offer an explanation that makes good sense.

apc3161
12-30-2007, 07:17 AM
Yes, the line should be removed. There is no such thing as a "terrorist nation," only individuals who are terrorists.

If we are to spread democracy and freedom, and ideals and such without using force, then education seems the best way to do that don't you think? Repressed muslim women studying at Berkely sounds like a great idea to me.

Just need to do a good background check first and see if there's anything in their past which leads authorities to beleive they have been gotten to.

Deny on a case by case basis.

Exactly, you nailed exactly what I wanted to write.

1) People are terrorists, not nations. To label an entire nation as a terrorist nation almost implies that all the people there are terrorists

2) Imagine this, there is a country where the majority are the definitive "islamo fascist terrorists". Does that mean we shouldn't allow some of the moderates to come here and study? Of course not. If anything, we should be encouraging the moderates to come here so they can learn more about us and tell everyone back home that we aren't so bad (from their point of view).

Now, is that to say their shouldn't be more scrutiny into who we let in the country? No, I would possibly be in favor of this. But to go around saying "no students from terrorist nations" is a wrong in my opinion. That sounds like something Rudy would say.

Not something from the person who goes around saying "We should be friends with nations and spread our values through principle, not force"

ladyliberty
12-30-2007, 07:18 AM
The status of who a "terrorist nation" is can change - with proper diplomacy and the backing of Congress. I think it would make an excellent point of leverage to allow only friendly foriegn nations to have student visas. what is so wrong with that????

The 19 terrorists who came to Florida were here on student visas. That is a point of weakness in our border defense. So is illegal immigration. All a member of Al Queida need do is change into a pair of jeans and work boots - take off the turban - and slip across our southern border - it is not too difficult for them to disguise themselves as illegal immigrants. They have brown skin, black hair and eyes, and look similar to Mexicans.

People we need a major overhaul on how we do our immigration process and who we let into our country.

The 14th ammendment has been preverted to allow for "anchor babies" to get entire families into the country illegally. I think Ron Paul is right to stop all such activity NOW, and then reform the way people are allowed into our country, in such a way that our national defense and economic resources ar no longer in jepoardy.

Revolution9
12-30-2007, 07:19 AM
Randy,

I respect your wit, clarity and creative writing, but I respectfully disagree with the essence of your argument.

IMO Collectivist punishment for individual acts is unbecoming a liberty candidate PERIOD.

All the best,

T.E.D

PS. This does not solve the problem, this forces would be terrorists to seek residency/citizenships from "non terrorist nations" to bypass the system while millions who did nothing wrong are denied an opportunity to gain education in the land of the free (which they will pay for), learn about american culture, increase understanding, bring back their perspective back to their country and reduce xenophobia. Of course, to ensure that American Citizens are not disadvantaged I am supportive of immigration quotas. Its the blanket denials I have a logical and ethical problem with.

PPS. Such a stance perpetuates xenophobia and it is counter productive due to this.

Imagine for a moment that a global terrorist network issues an order to carry out terrorist acts within USA for members in "non terrorist nations"
and these members carry this out.

What does US do now? Declare more "terrorist nations", alienate more potential students? Such a result would play into the hands of terrorists, for it
would isolate US further.

I do not get the logic of this approach for these types of reasons.

Hi ED. When I emigrated from Canada to the US in 1980 I had to sign a giant stack of documents. My father-in-law had to sign a fudiciary pledge that i would never take a dime from the government and cover my own health insurance etc. The "collectivist" routine as portrayed by you does not hold water in situations such as this. there was never any "right" for me as a Canadian Citizen to enter into and take advantage of the US economy as it is for my son, born as an American. It was sheer privelege only which allowed me to gan access to the US. I was collectively one of those seeking entry to live here and collectively I got dealt with. I sure wold have liked to have been treated as an individual but fully understand there is no way they can possibly parse each individuals intent so they structured guidelines to adhere to that generally allowed that i would maintain the status of a good citizen once living in the US of A.

The other point you miss is that for the time being there are nations aligned against the US interests and will do damage to them if given the opportunity. However, under a Paul administration these countries will dwindle quickly in number. The world wants to do business with America. I can see diplomatic relations and trade resuming with Iran within two years of a Paul Presidency. As for students from other countries. let those countries build prestigou institutions of learning. They are capable. As well, our children need those seats at the American universities. We are the ones needing the shoring up of our engineering, production, a research and development and hard sciences brain trusts if we intend to compete as a nation in a non military fashion throughout the coming century. There is little point in training an engineer and them returning to their country. We need engineers here or we are destined to become a country of burger flippers, shoe shiners and Fuller brush salesmen.

As per your orders issued to non-terrorist aligned students.. Well..that looks like a police action and the shutting down of rogue criminal cells. If the state did not sponsor the terrorism nor issue the directive, which per your scenario was issued by the terrorist state ten this would again slot them right back into that little slot we use for crackheads, theves, rapists, muderers and thugs. And ya know what. I ain't letting the crackheads pal in my house. I could care less he doesn't smoke the shit and says Jesus saved him. Part of liberty is the ability to walk around unfettered and without fear.

best Regards
Randy

apc3161
12-30-2007, 07:27 AM
There is little point in training an engineer and them returning to their country. We need engineers here or we are destined to become a country of burger flippers, shoe shiners and Fuller brush salesmen.


Seeing as I attended a top 5 university in this country and studied engineering I'm going to say this.

What MAKES our schools great IS the internationals. Some of my best friends and smartest people I knew at college were internationals. Not allowing them to come and learn here would be harmful to our country (especially considering that most of them end up staying here).

Your argument would almost imply that we should put an end to immigration or else all the smart internationals would "take our jobs" and we would "become a country of burger flippers, shoe shiners and Fuller brush salesmen."

If we were to not allow internationals to enter our country to study, our schools would take MAJOR hits, because they would lose a lot of talent. I would also like to point out that MOST of my professors were internationals. Should we also not let good teachers come too?

Last point, the best schools in this country are private. Who is the government to indirectly tell these schools what kind of people they can and cannot let study in their privately owned schools?

Materialist
12-30-2007, 07:32 AM
So who WILL you support? Ron Paul is still far better than anyone else in the race. Besides, he hasn't even been given an opportunity to respond yet. He often takes positions that make people gasp, but then goes on to offer an explanation that makes good sense.
If this ad keeps running, I doubt that I'll support Ron Paul. Maybe, I'll vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, or maybe I won't vote for anyone. I'm not going to vote for a person I don't trust.

Revolution9
12-30-2007, 07:48 AM
Seeing as I attended a top 5 university in this country and studied engineering I'm going to say this.

What MAKES our schools great IS the internationals. Some of my best friends and smartest people I knew at college were internationals. Not allowing them to come and learn here would be harmful to our country (especially considering that most of them end up staying here).

Your argument would almost imply that we should put an end to immigration or else all the smart internationals would "take our jobs" and we would "become a country of burger flippers, shoe shiners and Fuller brush salesmen."

If we were to not allow internationals to enter our country to study, our schools would take MAJOR hits, because they would lose a lot of talent. I would also like to point out that MOST of my professors were internationals. Should we also not let good teachers come too?

Last point, the best schools in this country are private. Who is the government to indirectly tell these schools what kind of people they can and cannot let study in their privately owned schools?

I see the poignant suggestion within your tome that there is not enough smart Americans to fill those seats. There is the precise reason I take this stance. You also suggest that to have to go to school with other Americans would be less than satisfying as compared to the individuals from other countries. A curious mindset to say the least. As for the professors. I presume they are American? Glad they stayed. Aga Khan did not stay and returned to create a nuclear technology black market of knowledge. It has cost us a great deal of treasure to keep track of this prick and his cohorts at the highest levels of far eastern Asian goverments and what they are up to.

Lastly, the government is not telling them who they can and cannot teach. It is simply dictating who can and cannot enter the country. Once here they can go anywhere their money gets them.

Best Regards
Randy

IHaveaDream
12-30-2007, 07:50 AM
If this ad keeps running, I doubt that I'll support Ron Paul. Maybe, I'll vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, or maybe I won't vote for anyone. I'm not going to vote for a person I don't trust.

I think most people here would admit to not liking one thing or another about our candidate or our campaign. However, at least you know Ron Paul will abide by the Constitution, the rule of law..and most importantly..the will of the electorate. If he's elected President, he may attempt to enact changes that the majority will reject. If so, he'll accept that and carry on. The other candidates will attempt to force their agendas down our throats whether we like it or not.

Revolution9
12-30-2007, 07:52 AM
If this ad keeps running, I doubt that I'll support Ron Paul. Maybe, I'll vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, or maybe I won't vote for anyone. I'm not going to vote for a person I don't trust.

Six posts and nothing but whning. The pampers line is over there.. You can pick up the baby powder for your burned ass in the next line. Put your own toys back in the playpen please. Sorry about the lines,. That is the way of socialism..and you seem stuck on it.

HTH
Randy

Minuteman
12-30-2007, 07:57 AM
Who really gives a fuck, honestly. With whats going on in this country and around the world, you come here to nitpick over scrutinizing student visa's.

user
12-30-2007, 08:00 AM
Six posts and nothing but whning. The pampers line is over there.. You can pick up the baby powder for your burned ass in the next line. Put your own toys back in the playpen please. Sorry about the lines,. That is the way of socialism..and you seem stuck on it.

HTH
Randy
A socialist who's thinking about voting for a Libertarian?

expatinireland
12-30-2007, 08:01 AM
It is very tough to get ones intent across in 30 seconds.

In this ad, does Ron Paul really mean to ban all students from "terrorist nations"?

Does Saudi Arabia work any less harder against Al Queda than Spain or France works against ETA. The case could be made that China is committing economic terrorism against the USA, so maybe we should ban Chinese students.

I don't believe the intent behind the words is as harsh as the wording in the ad, but the wording leaves too much to the imagination.

Maybe the ad should have just read "stricter controls on student visas".

Materialist
12-30-2007, 08:08 AM
A socialist who's thinking about voting for a Libertarian?
I've been an advocate of the Free Market for many years and have voted for the Libertarian Party candidate since 1980.

user
12-30-2007, 08:10 AM
I've been an advocate of the Free Market for many years and have voted for the Libertarian Party candidate since 1980.
I understand, I was responding to Revolution9 calling you a socialist.

apc3161
12-30-2007, 08:12 AM
I see the poignant suggestion within your tome that there is not enough smart Americans to fill those seats. There is the precise reason I take this stance. You also suggest that to have to go to school with other Americans would be less than satisfying as compared to the individuals from other countries. A curious mindset to say the least. As for the professors. I presume they are American? Glad they stayed. Aga Khan did not stay and returned to create a nuclear technology black market of knowledge. It has cost us a great deal of treasure to keep track of this prick and his cohorts at the highest levels of far eastern Asian goverments and what they are up to.

Lastly, the government is not telling them who they can and cannot teach. It is simply dictating who can and cannot enter the country. Once here they can go anywhere their money gets them.

Best Regards
Randy

No, most of my professors WERE NOT Americans.

I also never implied that there weren't "smart Americans" to take those seats. I just implied that those seats should be reserved for the smartest, international or American.

I don't think you have the slightest understanding how much our country benefits from immigration and international students.

If we were to put an end to this, our country would tank.

We should be encouraging the best and the brightest to come here, study, and work. Not telling them to go somewhere else.

hcbrand
12-30-2007, 08:21 AM
I'm with Dr. Paul on this. I think the bigger picture here is the idea that if you want the Patriot act rescended and the troops brought home, then securing the borders-from all sides-has to be stepped up. Paying closer attention to who is knocking on the door is not a bad policy.

Materialist
12-30-2007, 08:26 AM
I've been an advocate of the Free Market for many years and have voted for the Libertarian Party candidate since 1980.
I see! My mistake!

apc3161
12-30-2007, 08:28 AM
Paying closer attention to who is knocking on the door is not a bad policy.

I agree, but saying NO ONE from a certain countries can't come here to study is ridiculous. I also just don't like the idea of "terrorist nation". RP to me always seemed like the candidate of reason, peace, friendship, et cetera.

The use of the term "terrorist nation" to me sounds like war propaganda that the other campaigns constantly spew out.

Again, thats not to say that we shouldn't enforce visa laws for strictly, or not have meticulous background checks on people who enter the country.

hcbrand
12-30-2007, 08:34 AM
The use of the term "terrorist nation" to me sounds like war propaganda that the other campaigns constantly spew out.

It was a little surprising to me also (to hear it), but the fine print states that we should 'scrutinize' the ease of obtaining a student visa. I read no where any specific about denying entry to entire countries.

LibertyEagle
12-30-2007, 08:41 AM
No, most of my professors WERE NOT Americans.

I also never implied that there weren't "smart Americans" to take those seats. I just implied that those seats should be reserved for the smartest, international or American.

I don't think you have the slightest understanding how much our country benefits from immigration and international students.

If we were to put an end to this, our country would tank.

We should be encouraging the best and the brightest to come here, study, and work. Not telling them to go somewhere else.

Wow! I just so totally disagree with you on this. Preference should be given to AMERICANS at our own universities. Allowing some international students is great, but I don't think it is our job to educate the world.

Why is it that you think our country "would tank" if we primarily educated Americans at our universities? I'm really curious. From what I see, we are "tanking" right now, because of the big government managed trade agreements, coupled with all the big government regulations put on American businesses.

To me, this seems like more of the "world citizen" type of stuff. I am not a world citizen, I am an American.

Ron LOL
12-30-2007, 08:44 AM
Just based on the volume of posts critical of the ad, I think RP definitely does need to clarify what he means.

But that being said, I have no issue with denying student visas wholesale.

It's pretty simple, to me. Ron Paul's foreign policy says we shouldn't intervene in the affairs of other nations. He also feels that economic sanctions are an act of war (or something similar). But one thing we can do is make it clear that we won't put up with another nation's crap (so to speak) if they aren't willing to police themselves.

I have no idea how the background check process works for obtaining a visa, but I have to imagine it relies in large part on the applicant's government furnishing at least some documents. If a nation abides terrorism within its borders, the credibility of its government is damaged IMO. There's a trust relationship here, and I see no reason to trust those who can't keep their own house in order.

Ron LOL
12-30-2007, 08:53 AM
Wow! I just so totally disagree with you on this. Preference should be given to AMERICANS at our own universities. Allowing some international students is great, but I don't think it is our job to educate the world.

Why is it that you think our country "would tank" if we primarily educated Americans at our universities? I'm really curious. From what I see, we are "tanking" right now, because of the big government managed trade agreements, coupled with all the big government regulations put on American businesses.

To me, this seems like more of the "world citizen" type of stuff. I am not a world citizen, I am an American.

I definitely disagree with you here. With the obvious exceptions Ron Paul raises, our universities should be open to anybody academically qualified and able to pay tuition.

The bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma. A university education used to mean something special, but these days it's just "that thing what comes after high school" to so many Americans. I'm an engineer too, and I studied with plenty of jackasses who didn't appreciate what they were getting. Luckily, the attrition rate in most engineering departments is enough to weed these folks out.

But seriously, I'd rather see foreigners come here to study if they're taking the place of people who honestly just aren't university material*. Smart, hard working folks immigrating to the US in droves has never been a bad thing.

*But will graduate with a degree anyway, thereby diluting the marketability of my degree.

disciple
12-30-2007, 08:54 AM
The term is divisive, distractive, offensive, inherently false, and is not worthy of the campaign and the good name of Dr. Paul. We may win some voters in the short run but we will definitely lose much more in the long run. We are giving our opponents amnution that could be used effectively against us.

Whoever thought this is a good idea should be fired immedietaly.

Paulinista4TW
12-30-2007, 08:56 AM
"Terrorist Nations"? Next ad will talk about "axis of evil" maybe? Someone should be fired for this.

LibertyEagle
12-30-2007, 08:57 AM
I definitely disagree with you here. With the obvious exceptions Ron Paul raises, our universities should be open to anybody academically qualified and able to pay tuition.

The bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma. A university education used to mean something special, but these days it's just "that thing what comes after high school" to so many Americans. I'm an engineer too, and I studied with plenty of jackasses who didn't appreciate what they were getting. Luckily, the attrition rate in most engineering departments is enough to weed these folks out.

But seriously, I'd rather see foreigners come here to study if they're taking the place of people who honestly just aren't university material*. Smart, hard working folks immigrating to the US in droves has never been a bad thing.

*But will graduate with a degree anyway, thereby diluting the marketability of my degree.

I said nothing about lowering the standards to be admitted to a given university. I said preference should be given to Americans and I stand by that.

Ron LOL
12-30-2007, 09:00 AM
I said nothing about lowering the standards to be admitted to a given university. I said preference should be given to Americans and I stand by that.

So academic affirmative action, basically?

LibertyEagle
12-30-2007, 09:02 AM
So academic affirmative action, basically?

No, not at all. You seem to be approaching this issue from the perspective that it is our job to educate the world.

austin4paul
12-30-2007, 09:03 AM
remember who the TARGET audience is...

Exactly. There's no definition of "terrorist nations" and I'm guessing that the whole terrorist rhetoric vanishes once he takes office. And what would those countries want more -- a few students who probably aren't granted visas now anyway, or 4 more years of a senseless war killing God knows how many more people?

Jodi
12-30-2007, 09:04 AM
Absolutely NOT! It should NOT be removed!

We need to bring our troops home from around the world, promise to NEVER attack nations pre-emptively, and be VERY careful about who we let come into the USA from terrorist nations.

I agree. Those that do not like the ad my question to you is... WHERE IS YOUR ALLIGANCE TO THIS COUNTRY???? If you are American you should not have a problem with the ad.

disciple
12-30-2007, 09:07 AM
I agree. Those that do not like the ad my question to you is... WHERE IS YOUR ALLIGANCE TO THIS COUNTRY???? If you are American you should not have a problem with the ad.

What if you are not an American like all those friends and supporters all over the world?

apc3161
12-30-2007, 09:08 AM
I agree. Those that do not like the ad my question to you is... WHERE IS YOUR ALLIGANCE TO THIS COUNTRY???? If you are American you should not have a problem with the ad.

You mean besides the fact that the vast majority of U.S citizens have only been here for 3 generations or less and that our country and everything that has made us great is a result of immigration?

Well hell, besides that, I have no problem with this ad.

Ron LOL
12-30-2007, 09:10 AM
No, not at all. You seem to be approaching this issue from the perspective that it is our job to educate the world.

What you're describing is a public relations (some Americans may be pissed if we educate too many foreigners) and opportunity cost (a university may be able to produce higher quality research with more international students) problem for universities, not something that should be legislated.

Ron LOL
12-30-2007, 09:13 AM
You mean besides the fact that the vast majority of U.S citizens have only been here for 3 generations or less and that our country and everything that has made us great is a result of immigration?

Well hell, besides that, I have no problem with this ad.

I understand where you're coming from, but I really think you're sticking your head in the sand. Why ignore threats? This is a far more reasonable policy than preemptive war. And it's not like we're locking our door and throwing away the key, either...we'll still have tons of international students at our universities.

If anything it's incentive for certain places to do a better job taking care of terrorism.

apc3161
12-30-2007, 09:13 AM
Wow! I just so totally disagree with you on this. Preference should be given to AMERICANS at our own universities. Allowing some international students is great, but I don't think it is our job to educate the world.

Why is it that you think our country "would tank" if we primarily educated Americans at our universities? I'm really curious. From what I see, we are "tanking" right now, because of the big government managed trade agreements, coupled with all the big government regulations put on American businesses.

To me, this seems like more of the "world citizen" type of stuff. I am not a world citizen, I am an American.

First off, the best universities ARE PRIVATE. They can allow whoever the hell they want entrance and the government should really have no say in that. Preference should be given to those best qualified, regardless of nationality. And again, because the schools are private, they are free to do whatever they want.

I agree it is not our job to educate the world, but it is the job of our universities to remain as prestigious and competitive as possible and that entails allowing the brightest minds from around the world the right to enroll.

If we were to not allow the BRIGHTEST of foreign students and workers to come here, they would go somewhere else, and our businesses and universities would suffer, period.

Instead of attracting the brightest from across the world to America, you would be telling them to go home. That would be an artificially created brain drain. I really hope that is not what you believe would be good for this country.

Highstreet
12-30-2007, 09:14 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-iJKwskH4

Occurs at about 22 seconds into the ad

I know there is already an active poll on the ad, but assuming it could be removed, I just wanted to get the opinion of the grassroots on whether it should be removed.

When I first heard it, I didn't think about it. But they could easily change the soundtrack and say "questionable places" or some other less inflammatory phrase.

"terrorist nations" is undefined, inflammatory, a PR nightmare, and will paint him as "not understanding Foreign relations" and paint him in the "isolationist" corner.

apc3161
12-30-2007, 09:15 AM
I understand where you're coming from, but I really think you're sticking your head in the sand. Why ignore threats? This is a far more reasonable policy than preemptive war. And it's not like we're locking our door and throwing away the key, either...we'll still have tons of international students at our universities.

If anything it's incentive for certain places to do a better job taking care of terrorism.

I think we tend to have an accord. I have no problem doing better background checks from students of more "terrorist prone" countries. I have no problem with enforcing visas and kicking those out that have broken the law and overstay their visa lengths.

but this idea of labeling countries as "terrorist nations" accomplishes nothing, is a form of collective punishment, and is far too vague.

Jodi
12-30-2007, 09:26 AM
You mean besides the fact that the vast majority of U.S citizens have only been here for 3 generations or less and that our country and everything that has made us great is a result of immigration?

Well hell, besides that, I have no problem with this ad.

So do you advocate that we let anyone into this country? If we are going to bring the troops home from all other countries, how do you propose that we defend our country? The immigration from the days of old is quite different than that of today.

TaxProtester
12-30-2007, 09:36 AM
No, but they SHOULD change it so that they spell it correctly! Visa's ???? WTF!

atthegates
12-30-2007, 09:39 AM
ron paul is seen by many republicans as weak on national security. not only will this ad help us in iowa where immigration is a huge issue, but it also helps to portray him as someone who understands the threat of terrorism and would implement preventive measures.

Revolution9
12-30-2007, 09:41 AM
What if you are not an American like all those friends and supporters all over the world?

They should understand this is our country. I don't see a bunch of sympathizers demanding Switzerland open their doors to immigrants from countries that have shady operations at the top levels of government. Not even with a canard argument like "Well..they are bankers for the corrupt politicians there.."

Best
Randy

Highstreet
12-30-2007, 09:46 AM
ron paul is seen by many republicans as weak on national security. not only will this ad help us in iowa where immigration is a huge issue, but it also helps to portray him as someone who understands the threat of terrorism and would implement preventive measures.

He should just start using the phrase "Peace thru Strength" as Reagan did, or his own like "Peace and Strength".

Using the undefined, inflammatory phrase like "terrorist nations" is just a PR nightmare, and will help them pigeon hole him in that "isolationist" corner.

Jodi
12-30-2007, 09:47 AM
What if you are not an American like all those friends and supporters all over the world?

If you are talking about the supporters of Ron Paul in my estimation they are supporting Ron's message of freedom. They do not have a say in our election or what our policies are in this country.

Revolution9
12-30-2007, 09:59 AM
What you're describing is a public relations (some Americans may be pissed if we educate too many foreigners) and opportunity cost (a university may be able to produce higher quality research with more international students) problem for universities, not something that should be legislated.

What they do after they are allowed into the country is not to be legislated. This is not like we will not allow Japanese, Chinese and Indians into the country to attend our Universities. I highly doubt we will exclude any European countries, neither eastern nor western bloc. I do not see any problem with Russia and a good exchange program in the sciences is probably warranted given the advancements beyond the US in some areas of technology and research.

IMO, from an intelligence oriented standpont the first to get cut access from regime countries who are known to have destructive attitudes towards American interests are the student aged populace as they are easily the most idealistic, and can be manipulated negatively due to lack of life experience. It is wiser when diplomatically attempting to rein in rogue regimes without the use of military force or regime change through psyops is to negotiate with and allow businessmen to enter and leave the country under scrutiny. Allow the development of contracts without the interference of sanctions. Once they have a vested interest in business with Americans they will take that back to their country and initiate change to protect business interests, which as well generates revenue for their home country economy.

Once a country shows good will and its police forces have the local version of international organised crime under cintrol then its student aged ppulation can apply for visas. However the US of A will be an immensely popular country again with a Paul Presidency so t may do well for other countries to set up their own institutes of hgher learning just so they do ot lose a generation to inadequate skills and knowledge acquisition. Like has happened here." Leave it to them furrinners..Thems smarter than us here folk".. It is time America started educating Americans again.

best Regards
Randy

Thurston Howell III
12-30-2007, 10:03 AM
I actually agree with it. Letting Saudi's (mostly) in on student visas is precisely how we got attacked. Plus, we can't keep track of them anyway.

apc3161
12-30-2007, 10:05 AM
No, but they SHOULD change it so that they spell it correctly! Visa's ???? WTF!

hehe that and also I'm not entirely sure the grammar is correct, "visas from terrorist nations". Do they not mean, "visas to students from terrorist nations"?

Jodi's mom
12-30-2007, 10:08 AM
"While we generally should welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. Legislation I introduced in the fall would restrict immigration, including the granting of heavily abused student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department."

When you take under consideration the above-paragraph written by Dr. Paul, and scrutinize what he is saying, it makes perfect sense. He is not saying that we should "do away" with student visas permanently; he specifically says, "restrict" (doesn't mean "abolish"), mentions "heavily abused" student visas by individuals "from nations listed as terrorist threats" by the State department.

I know there are a lot of smart people posting on this forum, but who among us can say we are smarter (or wiser) than Dr. Paul?

We should all be thankful that he would take such a strong stand on this issue for the simple fact that we are at war. Allowing anyone without discrimination into the country under any guise, is just plain stupid and irresponsible.

In the sentence before the above-quoted paragraph, he states this:


"There were many fine German-Americans in the U.S. during World War II, but we certainly did not allow open immigration from Germany until hostilities had ceased and loyalties could be determined".

He didn't mention it, but many fine Japanese-Americans were confined in concentration camps on American soil until "hostitities had ceased and loyalties could be determined". After the war ended, many (maybe all) of these singled out Japanese remained in the locale of their confinement and their descendants enjoy the American life today. Their confinement was temporary. And what is extraordinarily American of these people, is that they understood "why" it had to be done. They didn't take offense and take to the streets to crying "Discrimination!!" "Unfair!!" or "Racists!!". They knew perfectly well why it was necessary. To say that Dr. Paul is unfair to profile a certain ethnicity is ludricrous especially in light of the fact that we are in a war against a certain group of people with a certain ethnicity. Remember, he specifically said "restrict", not "abolish". Keep it in context.

In this "enlightened" generation, too many like to assume they have the capability of telling authority what to do, how to do it, etc. Dr. Paul is a blessing from God in my opinion in that he is willing to LEAD US into taking our country back. In an army, a private doesn't tell the general what to do, how to do it OR that they disagree with the policy or plan. They follow their leader! Anything less results in chaos and quite frankly, this country has had too much chaos. We're bordering on anarchy in more ways than one as it is and if not curbed, we'll be in worse shape than we are now. There is a time and place for dissent, but this is neither the time or the place.

(Please bear in mind, I have posted this from post #4. I have not read every post or page in this thread. Thanks.)

apc3161
12-30-2007, 10:12 AM
So do you advocate that we let anyone into this country? If we are going to bring the troops home from all other countries, how do you propose that we defend our country? The immigration from the days of old is quite different than that of today.

When the hell did I say that? I propose we let anyone into this country who would make the country a better place.

Dr. Paul is right when it comes to incentives. The immigration problem would be a non-issue if it wasn't for the free medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare, and other social programs that american taxpayers must foot the bill for.

For one, Americans would be less pissed off because they wouldn't have to pay for such policies, and two, immigrants would have less of an incentive to come. Only the immigrants who really wanted to study and work hard would come.

I advocate that we enforce the duration periods of the visas we actually hand out and make sure that people who should leave the country do so. What I do not advocate is collective punishment. We shouldn't punish every student from a certain country that wants to come here and study just because a few radicals who happen to be from such a country decided to commit terrorist acts.

How are we supposed to spread our message of peace and freedom through example if we do not let those who would be willing to listen the right to come here? This would effectively be silencing the more moderate voices from certain countries and giving the more radical voices the perfect weapon, an uneducated populace who is highly susceptible to propaganda.

CMoore
12-30-2007, 10:16 AM
Immigration policy must now be considered a matter of national security. America has the same sovereign right to defend itself against enemies when the enemy attacks us from within. Common sense tells us that we currently should not be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists, or from nations with whom we are at war. There were many fine German-Americans in the U.S. during World War II, but we certainly did not allow open immigration from Germany until hostilities had ceased and loyalties could be determined. While we generally should welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. Legislation I introduced in the fall would restrict immigration, including the granting of heavily abused student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.

Jan 7, 2002



Dr. Paul is clearly on record about this. Anyone who is upset about this issue at this point has not researched the candidate before climbing aboard.

It seems reasonable to me. Immigration is the one area where he has big differences with libertarians generally. However, I agree that a nation without secure borders is no nation at all.

TheEvilDetector
12-30-2007, 10:19 AM
What they do after they are allowed into the country is not to be legislated. This is not like we will not allow Japanese, Chinese and Indians into the country to attend our Universities. I highly doubt we will exclude any European countries, neither eastern nor western bloc. I do not see any problem with Russia and a good exchange program in the sciences is probably warranted given the advancements beyond the US in some areas of technology and research.

IMO, from an intelligence oriented standpont the first to get cut access from regime countries who are known to have destructive attitudes towards American interests are the student aged populace as they are easily the most idealistic, and can be manipulated negatively due to lack of life experience. It is wiser when diplomatically attempting to rein in rogue regimes without the use of military force or regime change through psyops is to negotiate with and allow businessmen to enter and leave the country under scrutiny. Allow the development of contracts without the interference of sanctions. Once they have a vested interest in business with Americans they will take that back to their country and initiate change to protect business interests, which as well generates revenue for their home country economy.

Once a country shows good will and its police forces have the local version of international organised crime under cintrol then its student aged ppulation can apply for visas. However the US of A will be an immensely popular country again with a Paul Presidency so t may do well for other countries to set up their own institutes of hgher learning just so they do ot lose a generation to inadequate skills and knowledge acquisition. Like has happened here." Leave it to them furrinners..Thems smarter than us here folk".. It is time America started educating Americans again.

best Regards
Randy

Hi Randy,

If we deny student visas wholesale for political reasons (eg "terrorist nation") we are making a choice that allows unscrupulous

foreign political leaders to hold hostage educational choices of millions of innocent young men and women around the world

and further their agenda by preventing any possibility of these young people of gaining a different point of view.

Allowing these people to have a chance to come in and educating these people (at their expense of course)

and exposing them to American values (liberty, peace, tolerance, prosperity, inalienable rights) is the best way to make changes in their country.

We know that sanctions, bombing and similar isolationary tactics (ie. wholesale visa denials) hurt innocent civilians the most.

Have we learned nothing at all from our mistakes? I believe that we cannot prevail against terrorism this way.

Determined terrorists will always find a way in. Violent criminals will always find a way in Randy.

Please consider this.

Kind Regards,

T.E.D

PS. I just watched a very good movie "This Is England", which showed a very ugly side of xenophobia.

apc3161
12-30-2007, 10:19 AM
He is not saying that we should "do away" with student visas permanently; he specifically says, "restrict" (doesn't mean "abolish"), mentions "heavily abused" student visas by individuals "from nations listed as terrorist threats" by the State department.

The advertisement, which potentially millions of people will see says, "NO MORE student visas from terrorist nations."

It doesn't say restrict or any other similar words. Just, "No More."

apc3161
12-30-2007, 10:21 AM
Dear Randy,

If we deny student visas wholesale for political reasons (eg "terrorist nation") we are making a choice that allows unscrupulous

foreign political leaders to hold hostage educational choices of millions of innocent young men and women around the world

and further their agenda by preventing any possibility of these young people of gaining a different point of view.

Allowing these people to have a chance to come in and educating these people (at their expense of course)

and exposing them to American value is the best way to make changes in their country.

We know that sanctions, bombing and similar isolationary tactics (ie. wholesale visa denials) hurt innocent civilians the most.

Have we learned nothing at all from our mistakes?



I couldn't agree more. This is just an action that will stamp out the moderate voices and give power to the radicals in certain countries because the RADICALS will have a monopoly on education, philosophy, and ideas.

Jodi
12-30-2007, 10:21 AM
When the hell did I say that? I propose we let anyone into this country who would make the country a better place.

Dr. Paul is right when it comes to incentives. The immigration problem would be a non-issue if it wasn't for the free medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare, and other social programs that american taxpayers must foot the bill for.

For one, Americans would be less pissed off because they wouldn't have to pay for such policies, and two, immigrants would have less of an incentive to come. Only the immigrants who really wanted to study and work hard would come.

I advocate that we enforce the duration periods of the visas we actually hand out and make sure that people who should leave the country do so. What I do not advocate is collective punishment. We shouldn't punish every student from a certain country that wants to come here and study just because a few radicals who happen to be from such a country decided to commit terrorist acts.

How are we supposed to spread our message of peace and freedom through example if we do not let those who would be willing to listen the right to come here? This would effectively be silencing the more moderate voices from certain countries and giving the more radical voices the perfect weapon, an uneducated populace who is highly susceptible to propaganda.

So how do you make sure that those coming from other nations that have terrorism are absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt not a radical?

TheEvilDetector
12-30-2007, 10:28 AM
So how do you make sure that those coming from other nations that have terrorism are absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt not a radical?

If you want that kind of assurance, you need to close down immigration completely then you will be perfectly safe.

Otherwise, I think good background character checks, criminal checks, extensive interviews, references and sponsorship
(ie. reputable institution(s) and/or reputable individual(s) vouching for them in US and their country) should be a good place to start.

apc3161
12-30-2007, 10:30 AM
So how do you make sure that those coming from other nations that have terrorism are absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt not a radical?

You can't "without a doubt." That being said, we can't do that with European nations, South American nations, or any other nations. That doesn't mean we should stop giving them student visas does it? You have to take precautions sure, but to just put an end to student visas would only hurt us.

It's like the second amendment. Because people have guns, there is bound to be tragedies over the years such as Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc, but when you weigh these instances against what would result from 100% gun control, you realize that unfortunately life is not perfect and you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

We should enforce the visas that we currently give out, make sure they either apply for new visas or leave on time (reminder, every single 9-11 hijacker was on an expired visa). But if we stamp out the moderate voices in foreign countries, and give the radicals elements in these countries a monopoly of education, ideas, and philosophies, we will be creating more problems than those which we solved by putting an end to these student visa programs.

apc3161
12-30-2007, 10:31 AM
If you want that kind of assurance, you need to close down immigration completely.

Then you will be perfectly safe.

What he said. I agree with him again.

Jodi's mom
12-30-2007, 10:32 AM
<snip>

If we were to not allow the BRIGHTEST of foreign students and workers to come here, they would go somewhere else, and our businesses and universities would suffer, period.

Instead of attracting the brightest from across the world to America, you would be telling them to go home. That would be an artificially created brain drain. I really hope that is not what you believe would be good for this country.

Again, he didn't say ABOLISH student visas, he said "RESTRICT..... including the granting of heavily abused student visas". Please re-read his policies regarding this issue. Pick it apart with a fine-toothed comb.

If we don't get this issue under control as well as our sloppy immigration policies, there won't be an America for others to come to. All it takes is a handful of so-called "students" like those who brought down the Twin Towers, hit the Pentagon, (and potential other targets they failed hitting), killing several thousands Americans that put this country in the state of disarray we find ourselves today.

So, I would ask you, is this really what YOU believe is good for this country? This isn't the 1950s. It's post-September 2001.

If we sincerely want a leader in Ron Paul, then let's go all the way with him! Picking an ad apart and criticizing it only causes division. This isn't what we need at this critical time of the campaign. We need to be united...on ALL fronts!

apc3161
12-30-2007, 10:37 AM
Again, he didn't say ABOLISH student visas, he said "RESTRICT..... including the granting of heavily abused student visas". Please re-read his policies regarding this issue. Pick it apart with a fine-toothed comb.

If we don't get this issue under control as well as our sloppy immigration policies, there won't be an America for others to come to. All it takes is a handful of so-called "students" like those who brought down the Twin Towers, hit the Pentagon, (and potential other targets they failed hitting), killing several thousands Americans that put this country in the state of disarray we find ourselves today.

So, I would ask you, is this really what YOU believe is good for this country? This isn't the 1950s. It's post-September 2001.

If we sincerely want a leader in Ron Paul, then let's go all the way with him! Picking an ad apart and criticizing it only causes division. This isn't what we need at this critical time of the campaign. We need to be united...on ALL fronts!

I disagree, we don't need to unite on all fronts. I'm still going to vote for RP because of his stance on other issues, but I do not like his stance on this.

If there is anything I have learned from 9-11, its that GROUPTHINK is a terrible thing. When everyone unites and there is no dissent, great problems arise.

Also, I agree more with what Ron Paul has written than what he has said. The message says, " NO MORE STUDENT VISAS FROM TERRORIST NATIONS." He didn't say "restrict." Again, I'm not saying our current visa program is perfect, or that our borders should be left wide open, I'm just saying I hated the words chosen in this ad.

cswake
12-30-2007, 10:39 AM
This isn't what we need at this critical time of the campaign. We need to be united...on ALL fronts!I like the visa proposal, but I disagree here. A group think mentality is not what we need. An intelligent discussion, with disagreement, can continue without doing any harm to the work everyone is putting in.

lucius
12-30-2007, 10:40 AM
No--that line was to appeal to barely waking simians, who are terrified by a constant barrage of media induced bogeyman trauma; it deftly ties border security to terrorism with a solution in Dr. Paul that ad rocked!

TheEvilDetector
12-30-2007, 10:42 AM
No--that line was to appeal to barely waking simians, who are terrified by a constant barrage of media induced bogeyman trauma; it deftly ties border security to terrorism with a solution in Dr. Paul that ad rocked!

Heheheh, your post cracked me up. LOL

cswake
12-30-2007, 10:44 AM
No--that line was to appeal to barely waking simians, who are terrified by a constant barrage of media induced bogeyman trauma; it deftly ties border security to terrorism with a solution in Dr. Paul that ad rocked!Agreed - this is targeting the hard-core Republican base that I believe is centered around Giuliani's 9/11!!!!! camp and Tancredo's fallout.

Jodi
12-30-2007, 10:45 AM
What he said. I agree with him again.

My point in favor of the ad is...When I was first looking at Ron Paul I did not like the idea of bringing our troops home...how would we be kept safe with all the troops here in the US? The ad comforted me because I saw Ron Paul had a plan to make sure we were not attacked, it clicked with me, keep in mind I am an "elder voting republican" although not in IA. As I think about it whose country do you think this is? Why do you believe we have to be so humanitarian without regard to our safety as a nation?

apc3161
12-30-2007, 11:03 AM
My point in favor of the ad is...When I was first looking at Ron Paul I did not like the idea of bringing our troops home...how would we be kept safe with all the troops here in the US? The ad comforted me because I saw Ron Paul had a plan to make sure we were not attacked, it clicked with me, keep in mind I am an "elder voting republican" although not in IA. As I think about it whose country do you think this is? Why do you believe we have to be so humanitarian without regard to our safety as a nation?

I see where you are coming from, and this is definitely OUR country, but blocking student visas entirely to people from certain countries in my opinion will not increase our safety. Again, it will allow the radicals in other countries the ability to spread propaganda to an uneducated populace. Education is a defense against ignorance. If we allow the radicals in other countries the ability to take advantage of an uneducated, ignorant populace, we are not increasing our safety. The radicals will be able to spread their lies to those who don't know the truth, and their recruitment numbers will go up, and we will have more radicals to deal with.

Again, I am 100% for enforcing visas though. If they over-stay the Visa period, find them, and send them home. If we would have done this, 9-11 would never have happened because all of the hijackers had expired visas.

But if we don't allow the best and brightest from other nations to come here, educate themselves and work, our country will be in a lot of trouble. Our businesses and universities will take big hits. We should be encouraging such intelligent and hard working people to come here and help further improve our country, not telling them to stay out.

Corydoras
12-30-2007, 11:14 AM
Just a few facts here.

First, student visas are F-1 visas (M-1 visas for vocational schools). These are finite. The students who hold them are not immigrants. The intention is for them to go back to their home countries after graduation, though some switch to H-1b status if they get an employer to sponsor them.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1268.html#long

Second, the determination of which countries are state supporters of terrorism is in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Assistance_Act

Third, Ron Paul's proposal in H.R. 488 is for a ban, not a restriction, on visas for students from state supporters of terorism, with exceptions being granted by the President.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h108-488

Fourth, international professors are on H-1b visas or O-1 visas. In 1998, Ron Paul voted for an increase in H visas, which last up to 6 years. As far as I can determine, he has no problem with O visas, which can be renewed indefinitely. Notice that he is not calling for a ban OR a restriction on H or O visas.

Jodi's mom
12-30-2007, 11:16 AM
I disagree, we don't need to unite on all fronts. I'm still going to vote for RP because of his stance on other issues, but I do not like his stance on this.

If there is anything I have learned from 9-11, its that GROUPTHINK is a terrible thing. When everyone unites and there is no dissent, great problems arise.

Also, I agree more with what Ron Paul has written than what he has said. The message says, " NO MORE STUDENT VISAS FROM TERRORIST NATIONS." He didn't say "restrict." Again, I'm not saying our current visa program is perfect, or that our borders should be left wide open, I'm just saying I hated the words chosen in this ad.

Without the necessary documentation at hand to be absolutely certain, I think we can assume Dr. Paul's policy means as long as we are in a state of war with (these) terrorists nations.

Let me offer you an analogy. Suppose tainted beef is imported to our country but we don't know from which country. Further suppose that 1000s of Americans a day are dying from it. Do we continue to allow our grocers to sell beef? How long do we allow the imports not knowing its origins? How would you handle this? How do you put beef back on the meat counters without being selective? or discriminatory? Further, when you discover the source, do you consider yourself discriminating or racist against the country whose beef was tainted because you refuse to let their products into the country, and because you are now allowing other countries to import their products?

slamhead
12-30-2007, 11:17 AM
No controversial statements will get him in the news, and as we know, Dr. Paul always backs up his positions with logic they cannot deny.

Corydoras
12-30-2007, 11:30 AM
We should be encouraging such intelligent and hard working people to come here and help further improve our country, not telling them to stay out.

That's what O-1 visas are about. Not to mention... naturalization.
:rolleyes:

Jodi's mom
12-30-2007, 11:42 AM
<snip>

I advocate that we enforce the duration periods of the visas we actually hand out and make sure that people who should leave the country do so. What I do not advocate is collective punishment. We shouldn't punish every student from a certain country that wants to come here and study just because a few radicals who happen to be from such a country decided to commit terrorist acts.

How are we supposed to spread our message of peace and freedom through example if we do not let those who would be willing to listen the right to come here? This would effectively be silencing the more moderate voices from certain countries and giving the more radical voices the perfect weapon, an uneducated populace who is highly susceptible to propaganda.

I agree with you except for the wisdom of Solomon which follows:

Ecclesiates 3:8 (httphttp://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Eccl+3&section=1&version=kjv&new=1&oq=Ecclesiates+3://) (read the whole chapter wherein there is much wisdom)

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

In other words, apc, there is a time and place for everything under the sun. There will be a time again for students to come from all over the world to learn our ways, but now is not the time. Jeopardizing the safety of the country isn't worth being humanitarian.

That's like allowing a man from a family of known women abusers date your daughter hoping he might adopt the manners of the men in your family. You don't really know if he is or isn't a woman abuser, but you'll risk your daughter's safety to prove you're not prejudiced against his family?

Jodi's mom
12-30-2007, 11:47 AM
No controversial statements will get him in the news, and as we know, Dr. Paul always backs up his positions with logic they cannot deny.


I agree. We can trust his experience AND wisdom.

apc3161
12-30-2007, 12:17 PM
Without the necessary documentation at hand to be absolutely certain, I think we can assume Dr. Paul's policy means as long as we are in a state of war with (these) terrorists nations.

Let me offer you an analogy. Suppose tainted beef is imported to our country but we don't know from which country. Further suppose that 1000s of Americans a day are dying from it. Do we continue to allow our grocers to sell beef? How long do we allow the imports not knowing its origins? How would you handle this? How do you put beef back on the meat counters without being selective? or discriminatory? Further, when you discover the source, do you consider yourself discriminating or racist against the country whose beef was tainted because you refuse to let their products into the country, and because you are now allowing other countries to import their products?

With all due respect, that is a bad analogy in my opinion. A better analogy would be that 1 out of 1,000 steaks that come from Argentina have mad cow disease, should we stop importing all steaks from Argentina? No, we should just quarantine or recall batches which we know are infected

If thousands of americans were dying every single day because of immigrants, well then yes maybe I would reconsider my position, but that just isn't the case.

Paul10
12-30-2007, 12:29 PM
........

Liberty Star
12-30-2007, 01:58 PM
Since Ron Paul has labeled only these 5 nations as "terrorist nations", it can't effect too many people:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm


No nation should be labeled as evil ideally, but it's less than half a dozen nations and we still need military bases at least in some countries to defend our freedoms. Is that still a big deal?

srmpass98
12-30-2007, 02:00 PM
Yes. It should be removed or retracted for obvious reasons.

Revolution9
12-30-2007, 02:06 PM
Hi Randy,

If we deny student visas wholesale for political reasons (eg "terrorist nation") we are making a choice that allows unscrupulous

foreign political leaders to hold hostage educational choices of millions of innocent young men and women around the world

and further their agenda by preventing any possibility of these young people of gaining a different point of view.

Allowing these people to have a chance to come in and educating these people (at their expense of course)

and exposing them to American values (liberty, peace, tolerance, prosperity, inalienable rights) is the best way to make changes in their country.

We know that sanctions, bombing and similar isolationary tactics (ie. wholesale visa denials) hurt innocent civilians the most.

Have we learned nothing at all from our mistakes? I believe that we cannot prevail against terrorism this way.

Determined terrorists will always find a way in. Violent criminals will always find a way in Randy.

Please consider this.

Kind Regards,

T.E.D

PS. I just watched a very good movie "This Is England", which showed a very ugly side of xenophobia.

Hey ED.. Piss pfff clown. That last remark about xenophobia was all the grounds I needed to dismiss your entire argument out of hand as an emotional knee jerk. yer the one setting offf xenopphopbia bombs in lieu of common sense..Not me.

Best regards
Randy

hawks4ronpaul
12-30-2007, 02:19 PM
How about this: The campaign takes out the 2 seconds that has the line "terrorist nations" in it to appease the PC whiners on youtube. Then they run the ad in it's entirety in Iowa.

There, problem solved. Can we talk about important things now, like getting third place or better in Iowa?

I would not mind but different versions could make Paul look like a flip-flopper or a Slick Willie.

The critics are overlooking how the ad supports his ANTI-war position and solves the "cut and run" accusations.

See http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-stop-terrorists-from-following.html

AggieforPaul
12-30-2007, 02:28 PM
There's no going back now. I don't agree with Dr. Paul on this issue, but this has always been his position. He even went so far as to introduce a bill in during the Iranian hostage crisis that would withhold federal funding from any university that gave student visas to Iranians.

hawks4ronpaul
12-30-2007, 02:37 PM
My point in favor of the ad is...When I was first looking at Ron Paul I did not like the idea of bringing our troops home...how would we be kept safe with all the troops here in the US? The ad comforted me because I saw Ron Paul had a plan to make sure we were not attacked, it clicked with me, keep in mind I am an "elder voting republican" although not in IA. As I think about it whose country do you think this is? Why do you believe we have to be so humanitarian without regard to our safety as a nation?

Please listen to Jodi. The ad demolishes the "cut and run" and "Paul will leave us defenseless" accusations.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-stop-terrorists-from-following.html

hawks4ronpaul
12-30-2007, 02:44 PM
With all due respect, that is a bad analogy in my opinion. A better analogy would be that 1 out of 1,000 steaks that come from Argentina have mad cow disease, should we stop importing all steaks from Argentina? No, we should just quarantine or recall batches which we know are infected

If thousands of americans were dying every single day because of immigrants, well then yes maybe I would reconsider my position, but that just isn't the case.

I agree that individual assessments are preferable but information from terrorist states can be unreliable so (hypothetically) a blanket ban on 6 countries and individual assessments for the remaining (almost) 200 countries seems like an imperfect but reasonable way to maximize liberty.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-stop-terrorists-from-following.html

MayTheRonBeWithYou
12-30-2007, 02:48 PM
Can someone explain this to me? I saw that in the ad and was scratching my head. Who exactly are these "terrorist nations"?

LukeNM
12-30-2007, 02:52 PM
No - Who Cares, Get Over It And Let's Move On!

hawks4ronpaul
12-30-2007, 02:55 PM
I see where you are coming from, and this is definitely OUR country, but blocking student visas entirely to people from certain countries in my opinion will not increase our safety. Again, it will allow the radicals in other countries the ability to spread propaganda to an uneducated populace. Education is a defense against ignorance. If we allow the radicals in other countries the ability to take advantage of an uneducated, ignorant populace, we are not increasing our safety. The radicals will be able to spread their lies to those who don't know the truth, and their recruitment numbers will go up, and we will have more radicals to deal with.

Again, I am 100% for enforcing visas though. If they over-stay the Visa period, find them, and send them home. If we would have done this, 9-11 would never have happened because all of the hijackers had expired visas.

But if we don't allow the best and brightest from other nations to come here, educate themselves and work, our country will be in a lot of trouble. Our businesses and universities will take big hits. We should be encouraging such intelligent and hard working people to come here and help further improve our country, not telling them to stay out.

They still can learn democracy in Canada.

Visiting the West does not always help. Ho Chi Minh probably learned communism in France. Ho visited the United States.

I would have worded the ad differently but I do not see a big problem with the current ad.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-stop-terrorists-from-following.html

american empire
12-30-2007, 04:08 PM
edited

american empire
12-30-2007, 04:14 PM
just clarify from the HQ before you make any decisions.....

Revolution9
12-30-2007, 04:21 PM
Can someone explain this to me? I saw that in the ad and was scratching my head. Who exactly are these "terrorist nations"?

For current official policy on this do not look to the sympathizers. Instead try going to the US State Dept which makes these designations. It is ot Ro Paul taht makes these designations,.

Randy

austin356
12-30-2007, 04:40 PM
I am a doctor living in NH who is a die hard supporter of the Dr Paul. In fact my family is sick of me talking about him so much that they remind me every time I open my mouth "yes we will vote for your guy but please do shut up". They have never voted before.

I am came to the US on a student visa and was naturalized the LEGAL way. I am from a very sensitive part of the world um lets say its up there in the list of places the ad talks about.

The ad made me question myself. Am I not contributing to society. I feel part of America and its culture. I treat my patients as I would back in the country that I hail from. It makes me question if the brilliant minds from my country of origin will ever be allowed to come to America and contribute to research and education here.

At first I thought this was blatant pandering. But then I thought if the last part was to be removed after our intervention then it would be pandering too.

I have been accepted into the US society in a way that I would never expect possible anywhere else. Maybe its b/c I am a doc so many cant question my contribution. But at times I do feel the wrath of people who are anti immigration(very few). My answer to them is one that makes them question themselves. Where were their ancestors originally from? Germany, Russia, Ireland , Scotland, England? Where did Timothy Mcveigh's ancestors originate from. There are lunatic people in every country. But to collectively insinuate the whole population for an act that doesn't represent them isn't a good idea. Should other countries put an embargo on travelers from US b/c they detest Bush's policies.

I know where the doctor stands and his policies. So for me this ad has shocked me but doesnt make me worry too much. I might have problem answering certain questions. But the important thing for everyone who has voted "yes" for this poll is that this is a minor part of the Dr that we do not agree on. We shouldn't make a great big deal out of it. What we do need to do is push forward the positive message. If this will bring him more votes I am very happy with
the ad. As long as it gets the doctor to the office I am for it. We have more important issues to solve like financial, healthcare and foreign policy. Lets not make this a BIG issue. Trust me if I am still Voting for Dr Paul after this ad I doubt anyone else will stop supporting him NOW. Lets not give the Old Media negative things to talk about and lets focus on NH and Iowa.

If there are any docs on this forum, my advice :if you get a chance talk to your patients about issues in general then ask them if they know of Dr Paul. They will be listening intently. Yes it is ethical b/c you are trying to cure their apathy. Also other docs are very receptive to the message and so are the nurses. Lets face it we are sick of the insurance companies as much as the patients are. And yes we want to restore the doctor patient relationship.

Thanks for listening...
doctors for Paul.



thanks. good input.

Liberty Star
12-30-2007, 06:08 PM
So only 40% want "terrorist nations" phrase changed, 60% are ok with it.

This should get us a fraction of Tancredo/neocon supporters even if we lose some Indie and anti war support. Perhaps worth the trade off.

TheEvilDetector
12-30-2007, 06:12 PM
Hey ED.. Piss pfff clown. That last remark about xenophobia was all the grounds I needed to dismiss your entire argument out of hand as an emotional knee jerk. yer the one setting offf xenopphopbia bombs in lieu of common sense..Not me.

Best regards
Randy

The xenophobia remark WAS NOT directed at you and my use of it WAS NOT a knee-jerk, it was just my logical prediction of where "terrorist nation" labelling leads.

I also tried to be respectful to you, but now I can see that besides your talent at creative writing one of your shortcomings is a sizeable ego which seems to prevent

your ability to argue rationally without knee-jerking into ad-hominem. Come on Randy, dismissal of an entire argument because of one word that you do not 'like',

is intellectually dishonest.

CMoore
12-30-2007, 06:21 PM
So only 40% want "terrorist nations" phrase changed, 60% are ok with it.

This should get us a fraction of Tancredo/neocon supporters even if we lose some Indie and anti war support. Perhaps worth the trade off.

I would agree. The remarks in the ad are completely consistent with earliier writings. Anyone who would decide not to support Dr. Paul based on that ad would eventually leave anyway once they discovered his "true" position. I can't imagine anyone for whom such an issue is a deal breaker would be supporting him in the first place. Lately I have read a lot of posts from people who say "Oh well, that's it for me. I am outta here" over some trivial issue. I have to wonder what is up with that.

Paul10
12-30-2007, 06:21 PM
.....

Liberty Star
12-30-2007, 08:10 PM
I would agree. The remarks in the ad are completely consistent with earliier writings. Anyone who would decide not to support Dr. Paul based on that ad would eventually leave anyway once they discovered his "true" position. I can't imagine anyone for whom such an issue is a deal breaker would be supporting him in the first place. Lately I have read a lot of posts from people who say "Oh well, that's it for me. I am outta here" over some trivial issue. I have to wonder what is up with that.


Hopefully big majority of those wanting it changed don't feel too strongly about it for it to be a deal breaker. But I don't think it is consistent with the philosophy RP has based his campaign on upto this point. I'm disappointed too but I still think he has the best ideas to fix this mess we are in, disregarding this new "terrorist nations" slogan for a second that just showed up in his ad and is right out of the neocons book of phrases.


Another take on this:





Agonizing Over the Candidates and Who They Really Are

Paul is attracting anti-war Republicans and Democrats far beyond the libertarian base that he would normally draw from. He is attracting a lot of progressives who believe in global justice, want the war over, and want to return to a benign American model rather than a view where America is the dangerous destabilizer of the international system.

But then Ron Paul shocks this crowd by running an advertisement that is as hostile to immigration that I have ever seen. He actually has a shocking, Jesse Helmsian line, that outdoes anything that Rudy Giuliani has said: "No more visas for students from terrorist nations." This kind of position would appeal to those buying John Bolton's new book as a Christmas present and who are reverential to the kind of pugnacious hyper-nationalism that Dick Cheney manifests.

Who then is the real Ron Paul?


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/dec/30/agonizing_over_the_candidates_and_who_they_really_ are



I don't see how we would get any Tancredo supporters because the Iraq War is a bigger issue to them. Some polls suggest the economy but this is totally false. They don't know what makes the economy good otherwise they'd vote for Paul. Not to mention, the economy could include the Iraq War because some think oil production will go up or they think if we didn't invade Iraq, Saddam would have destabilized the region. Hell, the economy can even include immigration.

The campaign needs more ads on the Iraq War. Most voters don't know squat about their candidate.



I agree with you, issues of war policy/liberties at home/economic health of America are all tied to one another. Iraq war is the big elephant in this campaign and its enormous financial/human/moral costs should be highlighted. I was being overly pragmatic and optimistic when writing that comment.

Jodi's mom
12-30-2007, 11:59 PM
No - Who Cares, Get Over It And Let's Move On!


I agree!!! Let's just put all our energy into getting Ron Paul on the ballot!!!

Liberty Star
12-31-2007, 04:07 PM
Fallout continues.



Even Paul Can Pander

David Weigel
December 31, 2007

http://www.reason.com/UserFiles/Image/dweigel/roughcutpaul.jpg

This ad's going up on Iowa and New Hampshire TV. After some pleasant footage of (*cough*European*cough*) immigrants arriving at Ellis Island, we see a swarthy figure paddling it across a river and hear this:
Today, illegal immigrants violate our borders and overwhelm our hospitals, schools and social services. Ron Paul wants border security now. Physically secure the border. No amnesty. No welfare to illegal aliens. End birthright citizenship. No more student VISAs for terrorist nations.

Justin Raimondo is sickened:
This is pandering to the worst, Tom Tancredo-esque paranoia and outright ignorance (or do I repeat myself?) and is not worthy of Dr. Paul. I have the utmost respect for the candidate, but in using this unfortunate term, “terrorist nations,” the Good Doctor undermines his non-interventionist foreign policy stance. If these are, in truth, “terrorist nations” – which most will take to mean all predominantly Muslim nations — then why not invade them, kill the terrorists, and be done with it? This phraseology gives the War Party carte blanche – and, believe you me, they’ll use it.

http://reason.com/blog/show/124149.html



This ad and its amazingly neoconish wording and demagoguery could be the biggest blunder of Ron Paul campaign, one that could unravel it and I hope I'm very wrong on this.

Justin Raimondo is not the only one we may have lost or could lose because of this totally unnecessary shift in tone and message. If this ad is not pulled, it could rob a very motivated anti war segment of RP supporters of their enthusiasm for his candidacy. He is still the best candidate on some key issues important to many people but not many people reach into their wallets or get inspired with a zeal just because they want to fix fiscal policies. This is just gut feeling but this one reckless shift in message has the potential to dampen support of some of the most driven people Ron Paul’s views on war/foreign policy/liberties had inspired.

Goldwater Conservative
12-31-2007, 04:53 PM
No, but I'm all for changing it to terrorist-supporting nations. Like Paul, I'm more of a traditional conservative on this issue than a libertarian.

hawks4ronpaul
12-31-2007, 05:01 PM
Fallout continues.





This ad and its amazingly neoconish wording and demagoguery could be the biggest blunder of Ron Paul campaign, one that could unravel it and I hope I'm very wrong on this.

Justin Raimondo is not the only one we may have lost or could lose because of this totally unnecessary shift in tone and message. If this ad is not pulled, it could rob a very motivated anti war segment of RP supporters of their enthusiasm for his candidacy. He is still the best candidate on some key issues important to many people but not many people reach into their wallets or get inspired with a zeal just because they want to fix fiscal policies. This is just gut feeling but this one reckless shift in message has the potential to dampen support of some of the most driven people Ron Paul’s views on war/foreign policy/liberties had inspired.


Raimondo criticizes Paul but Raimondo uses the "terrorist nation" phrase too (pot calling the kettle black):


. The US – whose Draconian sanctions are responsible for the deaths of 5,000 Iraqi children per month – is itself the biggest terrorist nation on earth.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j032601.html

If using the phrase makes you a warmongering neocon, then Raimondo is a warmongering neocon.

Paul's ad is clearly anti-neocon and anti-war.

See http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-stop-terrorists-from-following.html

The only issue is if Paul's visa policy is X but the ad says Y.

user
12-31-2007, 08:59 PM
So only 40% want "terrorist nations" phrase changed, 60% are ok with it.

This should get us a fraction of Tancredo/neocon supporters even if we lose some Indie and anti war support. Perhaps worth the trade off.

How do you know that everyone who doesn't want it changed is ok with it? If it's changed now, it could look like a flip flop.

FreedomLover
12-31-2007, 09:02 PM
I would agree. The remarks in the ad are completely consistent with earliier writings. Anyone who would decide not to support Dr. Paul based on that ad would eventually leave anyway once they discovered his "true" position. I can't imagine anyone for whom such an issue is a deal breaker would be supporting him in the first place. Lately I have read a lot of posts from people who say "Oh well, that's it for me. I am outta here" over some trivial issue. I have to wonder what is up with that.

I think the only people we're really "losing" (as far as people who were committed to voting for him but now arn't) are a very small number of kookcinich supporters who dropped him in favor of paul when they found out kookcinich never had a chance.

The other few who are still here are just making a big stink over the trivial issue of how to phrase "terrorist-supporting nations."

FreedomLover
12-31-2007, 09:04 PM
How do you know that everyone who doesn't want it changed is ok with it? If it's changed now, it could look like a flip flop.

How do you know that everyone who wants it changed doesn't like the actual line? Maybe they just think it's not worth the 3 or 4 people who keep complaining ad nauseam about it.

user
12-31-2007, 09:06 PM
How do you know that everyone who wants it changed doesn't like the actual line? Maybe they just think it's not worth the 3 or 4 people who keep complaining ad nauseam about it.
Exactly, so you agree those figures are unreliable.

LibertyEagle
12-31-2007, 09:06 PM
No, but I'm all for changing it to terrorist-supporting nations. Like Paul, I'm more of a traditional conservative on this issue than a libertarian.

That's a good idea.