PDA

View Full Version : Proof That People Are Overreactingon Immigration Ad




DealzOnWheelz
12-30-2007, 12:29 PM
source cited: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/132/sane-and-sensible-immigration-policies-after-september-11/


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.

ThePieSwindler
12-30-2007, 12:33 PM
Send this to anyone who thinks hes "soft" on terror.

This makes alot of sense, and is another example of letting Ron speak for himself to elucidate an issue.

DealzOnWheelz
12-30-2007, 12:45 PM
bump

DealzOnWheelz
12-30-2007, 01:26 PM
bump

gb13
12-30-2007, 01:29 PM
I couldn't agree more. What a hero.

Bump.

Joe3113
12-30-2007, 01:32 PM
by Ron Paul, Dr. January 7, 2002

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.

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.



After being taken back a little by that immigration ad, this has COMPLETELY cleared it up for me. Ron is absolutely right. The campaign should have explained this position to the grassroots before hitting everyone with the ad.

JMO
12-30-2007, 01:38 PM
Without a link this is a worthless post. Show your source please.

DealzOnWheelz
12-30-2007, 01:40 PM
my source is http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/132/sane-and-sensible-immigration-policies-after-september-11/

disciple
12-30-2007, 01:43 PM
After being taken back a little by that immigration ad, this has COMPLETELY cleared it up for me. Ron is absolutely right. The campaign should have explained this position to the grassroots before hitting everyone with the ad.

QFT

coboman
12-30-2007, 01:47 PM
I understand this position, and I am still appalled by the term "terrorist nations", which does not appear in this essay.

Joe3113
12-30-2007, 01:55 PM
I understand this position, and I am still appalled by the term "terrorist nations", which does not appear in this essay.

It was required for the sake of the ad and keeping the message compact and effective. People have gotta calm down.


Saying this "individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department" instead of "terrorist nations" doesnt really work for a 30 second ad

Bradley in DC
12-30-2007, 02:05 PM
After being taken back a little by that immigration ad, this has COMPLETELY cleared it up for me. Ron is absolutely right. The campaign should have explained this position to the grassroots before hitting everyone with the ad.

I strongly, but respectfully, disagree.

Dr. Paul has, laudably, been a strong critic of the failures of our intelligence and foreign policies. One of the strongest arguments has been to stop doing what doesn't work or causes greater problems and focus instead on what does. What upsets us is the ad's divergence from these positions.

This statement from 2002 is fine. It is NOT what the ad says.

We do not want to indiscriminately enforce a group rights approach based on national origin. We want to learn from the mistakes of the past, not repeat them (increased standards, not blanket approaches that would not have prevented 9/11 had they been in place previously since most highjackers were Saudis, etc.). Simplistic, emotion-laden appeals undermine the rational, informed hard-headedness needed to bring true reforms that will make the country safer.

Bradley in DC
12-30-2007, 02:12 PM
It was required for the sake of the ad and keeping the message compact and effective. People have gotta calm down.

Saying this "individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department" instead of "terrorist nations" doesnt really work for a 30 second ad

No, the ad sucks and is offensive--and offensive to Dr. Paul's traditional stances and appeals. The complaints about the ad are justified (bad production quality, bad grammar, bad punctuation, bad capitalization, etc., in addition to poor text editing and contrary to the Freedom Philosophy message). As has been oft-remarked, there are so many better, more inspiring ads being done by the grassroots, I wish they official campaign would stop wasting our contributions on poorly done shit like this.

The purpose of government is to protect liberty. Where is the Constitutional authorization for simple-minded blanket immigration prohibitions? Where do the producers and supporters of this ad take their marching orders? From the ones who gave us the intelligence and security failures from which we suffer now--this is THEIR approach!

coboman
12-30-2007, 02:19 PM
Saying this "individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department" instead of "terrorist nations" doesnt really work for a 30 second ad

Then don't say it. Remove the student visa stuff altogether.

The official campaign is deviating from the inclusive freedom message that brought us together, and it is picking highly divisive issues, that may bring a few non passionate supporters.
But that are alienating a big bunch of passionate supporters, that have given tons of money, to see those funds used to promote views they don't agree with.:mad:

louisiana4liberty
12-30-2007, 02:20 PM
I understand this position, and I am still appalled by the term "terrorist nations", which does not appear in this essay.

I agree. I don't have much faith in a State Dept or a CIA coming up with lists of nations that are terrorists nations. I guess the nations that aren't on this list have less terrorists that may come into the US via student visas? Do we really want to rely on this as fact? I don't want want to rely on some dumb ass State Dept defining whole populations as possible terrorists. What happened to all that individual talk? Not judging people and defining them simply because they belong to a group, a nation in this case.

The US has financed many terrorists in the past. Should other nations not allow our students visas because of what our corrupt government has done. We are talking about discriminating against a whole lot of people here. I'm all for sharing information with other nations to do background checks, maybe coming up with an international standard for reporting criminals.

hawks4ronpaul
12-30-2007, 02:31 PM
I agree. I don't have much faith in a State Dept or a CIA coming up with lists of nations that are terrorists nations.

I agree but the DOS/CIA would be just as unreliable coming up with lists of individuals.

Relying on the North Korean government for information on North Korean individual applicants is no better.

People overlook that the ad supports Paul's ANTI-spy-on-Americans and ANTI-war positions. See http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-stop-terrorists-from-following.html

louisiana4liberty
12-30-2007, 03:01 PM
I agree but the DOS/CIA would be just as unreliable coming up with lists of individuals.

Relying on the North Korean government for information on North Korean individual applicants is no better.

People overlook that the ad supports Paul's ANTI-spy-on-Americans and ANTI-war positions. See http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-stop-terrorists-from-following.html

I think a CIA list of individuals would be more reliable. IMO, this comes down to minimizing the risk that a potential terrorist would make entry via a student visa while not discriminating against whole nations. I agree the international standards thing could be very difficult for some nations, yet easier for others. For example, I'm sure getting background info for a person from Kenya would be much more difficult than getting info on someone from Ireland.