Working on Campaign Response on "no more" vs. "limited"

[jblosser]

I have been working on getting a clarification from the Campaign on the new ad's "no more student visas to terrorist nations" language vs. the traditional "limited with review" language in Ron's prior proposed legislation on the issue. I see this as the main question people have right now. We've pointed here to his previous legislation, and the very far outstanding question people have been left with is the different in language. There's another question about what a "terrorist nation" is but since Ron's bills in the past have already spoken to that I think the question goes away if we can confirm the position is the same it's always been.

It's hard to reach people right now because it's Sunday and because of the other Fox Forum thing going on but what I've got right now is a reference from the campaign itself to Ron's previous legislation, including especially H.R. 3217, which was proposed just this year. THAT bill begins with the same language he's always used:


To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.

I'm working now on getting an absolute clarification of if this is still the position and the ad's wording was "overzealous", or if in fact there is a change in the position. I really think it's going to come down to the former but I'll post when I hear for sure.

[FreedomLover]

It was shortened in a way to appeal to the very conservative Iowa caucus-goers.

[adwads]

I have been working on getting a clarification from the Campaign on the new ad's "no more student visas to terrorist nations" language vs. the traditional "limited with review" language in Ron's prior proposed legislation on the issue. I see this as the main question people have right now. We've pointed here to his previous legislation, and the very far outstanding question people have been left with is the different in language. There's another question about what a "terrorist nation" is but since Ron's bills in the past have already spoken to that I think the question goes away if we can confirm the position is the same it's always been.

It's hard to reach people right now because it's Sunday and because of the other Fox Forum thing going on but what I've got right now is a reference from the campaign itself to Ron's previous legislation, including especially H.R. 3217, which was proposed just this year. THAT bill begins with the same language he's always used:

I'm working now on getting an absolute clarification of if this is still the position and the ad's wording was "overzealous", or if in fact there is a change in the position. I really think it's going to come down to the former but I'll post when I hear for sure.


I like the language in the immigration ad...look, we can't be nitpicking like this...its ron paul's decision what to put in the ad...this is a waste of our time

[jblosser]

It was shortened in a way to appeal to the very conservative Iowa caucus-goers.

We don't need to repeat the pro-con debate here that's already going on in 90 other threads. This thread is not about whether the position is right or not, or whether the wording was ok or not, this thread is about the Campaign's response (when it comes) on what the position IS. There is a legitimate question here and we'll get it answered and move on.

[DealzOnWheelz]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=68746

see thread

[Bradley in DC]

I have been working on getting a clarification from the Campaign on the new ad's "no more student visas to terrorist nations" language vs. the traditional "limited with review" language in Ron's prior proposed legislation on the issue. I see this as the main question people have right now.

I'm working now on getting an absolute clarification of if this is still the position and the ad's wording was "overzealous", or if in fact there is a change in the position. I really think it's going to come down to the former but I'll post when I hear for sure.

Thanks.

[jblosser]

I got through to a member of the immediate family who was sitting by Ron while I talked to him, unfortunately he went out for a bike ride before we got to this question. :-P

The family member's opinion is that Ron's position has not changed from what it has always been and while he hasn't seen the ad yet he'd assume like we do that the language is due to the audience and amount of time available in an ad. He's working on getting someone to do an official response.

I know this won't be good enough for some but it's what I have so far... right now the answer is that if you want to know Ron's position, go read HR 3217 and don't sweat the ad.

[jblosser]

Ron Paul confirms his views on immigration HAVE NOT CHANGED:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=68913