Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 46 of 46

Thread: Site Issue Evaluation: Ron Paul's border / immigration position

  1. #31
    I myself have never been an isolationist.
    I favor the very opposite of isolation:
    diplomacy,
    free trade,


    and freedom of travel.


    Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    Notice that Ron Paul doesn't recognize the claim that his belief in freedom of travel equates to a belief that borders don't exist, or the support of a single global government, or the denial of national sovereignty, or whatever else I get accused of when I propound his views.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    It's clear, not just from that quote, but from several others, that you're right about Ron's position on this. He is for allowing non-criminal illegal immigrants to stay and work in the US without there being any practical way to find and deport them. He is even for giving legal status via a green card with an asterisk to them, although there doesn't seem to be much incentive for any to pursue that if Ron's other policies were adopted.
    He would also allow Texas to deport them at will for any and all criminal activity with no second chance.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    I was specifically referencing a quote from Ron's book. And that quote was about American's right to exit.
    Have to agree with this. The quite is clearly centered on an American's right to exit. This is in line with his opposition to walls, "what keeps them out can be used to keep you in." This is a man who watched the birth life and death of the Berlin Wall in his peak years. Intent seems clear across his entire career to me. It should also be no surprise that he shifted emphasis but held the same policies when running for President as LP Nom.

  8. #36
    https://youtu.be/uQ2g3BYL18Q?list=PLA664A3A00D38CC7A

    Beginning @ 20:00

    "has the republican party missed the boat on appealing to hispanic voters"

    Ron Paul interview on "Face to Face with Jon Ralston"

    NO MANDATORY ID CARDS

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Notice that Ron Paul doesn't recognize the claim that his belief in freedom of travel equates to a belief that borders don't exist, or the support of a single global government, or the denial of national sovereignty, or whatever else I get accused of when I propound his views.
    Well, for one thing Ron Paul differentiates clearly between what should be done in an ideal state, from what should be done in the midst of this current madness. I think the biggest challenge you face is that current and ideal seem conflated, so it's easy to look at your ideas and see paid gangs escorting rich jihadis into the US.

    As I see it, Paul basically argues that if we can accomplish a set of social and economic liberty policies, then the stress of illegal immigration goes away altogether, along with the vast majority of the danger. Until such a time as we can make that happen, we need to advance and escalate border security, work to make the entire process sane and rational and humane, stop punishing private businesses by trying to make them enforce the laws, and stop punishing the States by stepping in and preventing them from enforcing the laws already on the books.

    Where you might get your points across better is in recognizing that if you could raise your fist into the air, snap your fingers, and *snap* borders and enforcement and all such things atrophied and died; in our current state we would be descended upon by madness. Contrarily, in the ideal state, such an event would enormously increase the prosperity of all people.

    Therefore let's work to achieve this ideal state, where strict immigration control will be irrelevant, while recognizing that to do some of these things in the current state could be a disaster.

    I think that is the point that Paul was able to make effectively enough. Sure, the perfect end state is to make physical borders vestigial; but to do this properly and peacefully a nation would have to edify it's own sovereignty at the same time. In our current national and global state of affairs, just vanishing the border would be dangerous, violent, and deadly. We can erase those threats by fixing a variety of national problems first. Let's go and fix those national problems first, and then talk about this again when we are a bit closer to the peace and prosperity which those policy improvements will afford.

    I think if you highlight that discernment a bit more boldly (or even a lot more boldly) you will meet a lot less opposition.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Well, for one thing Ron Paul differentiates clearly between what should be done in an ideal state, from what should be done in the midst of this current madness. I think the biggest challenge you face is that current and ideal seem conflated, so it's easy to look at your ideas and see paid gangs escorting rich jihadis into the US.

    As I see it, Paul basically argues that if we can accomplish a set of social and economic liberty policies, then the stress of illegal immigration goes away altogether, along with the vast majority of the danger. Until such a time as we can make that happen, we need to advance and escalate border security, work to make the entire process sane and rational and humane, stop punishing private businesses by trying to make them enforce the laws, and stop punishing the States by stepping in and preventing them from enforcing the laws already on the books.

    Where you might get your points across better is in recognizing that if you could raise your fist into the air, snap your fingers, and *snap* borders and enforcement and all such things atrophied and died; in our current state we would be descended upon by madness. Contrarily, in the ideal state, such an event would enormously increase the prosperity of all people.

    Therefore let's work to achieve this ideal state, where strict immigration control will be irrelevant, while recognizing that to do some of these things in the current state could be a disaster.

    I think that is the point that Paul was able to make effectively enough. Sure, the perfect end state is to make physical borders vestigial; but to do this properly and peacefully a nation would have to edify it's own sovereignty at the same time. In our current national and global state of affairs, just vanishing the border would be dangerous, violent, and deadly. We can erase those threats by fixing a variety of national problems first. Let's go and fix those national problems first, and then talk about this again when we are a bit closer to the peace and prosperity which those policy improvements will afford.

    I think if you highlight that discernment a bit more boldly (or even a lot more boldly) you will meet a lot less opposition.
    Thank you- well said!

    This is what I have being trying to say but gets constantly misunderstood.
    There is no spoon.

  11. #39
    I think Ron wants to be somewhat amenable when he talks to Young Turks or Russia Today compared to Alex Jones audience.
    BOWLING GREEN, Kentucky – Washington liberals are trying to push through the so-called DREAM Act, which creates an official path to Democrat voter registration for 2 million college-age illegal immigrants.
    Rand Paul 2010

    Booker T. Washington:
    Cast it down among the eight millions of Negroes whose habits you know, whose
    fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your firesides.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Sure, the perfect end state is to make physical borders vestigial; but to do this properly and peacefully a nation would have to edify it's own sovereignty at the same time. In our current national and global state of affairs, just vanishing the border would be dangerous, violent, and deadly. We can erase those threats by fixing a variety of national problems first.
    I think Europe was talking about scrapping Schengenand and establishing a complete European border. This is a sort of crises of opportunity. Of course, you can travel from country to country from within the border but from abroad, you'd be met wth a complete European border. Reason for that was to control the refugees but also to stop terrorist attacks by people operating as refugees. That is a two fold solution because it creates the illusion of oneness among countries there while shutting down the Schengenand .

    Now, the reason excuse to scrap Schengenand border code was "Exceptional Circumstances.''

    http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs...roposal_en.pdf

    The probem with "exceptional circumstances", though, is that it arbitrarily creates an obstacle for general freedom of movement of people.

    Anyway, I think that'll likely make it's way over here as a means to control North American borders. There was a brief debate on refugees coming here but it died down. I don't think it went away, though. And I hope that nothing bad happens within our borders in the mean time either by hook or by crook that would kind of re-create the fear based debate about refugees/terrorism. By way of an "undocumented immigrant" or "refugee" for example. Reason I say that is because historically, the American people have been on the losing side when it comes to establishing security measures against such things. The terrorists and even the authorities always win in that regard. I mean, we can't even fly from point A to point B anymore without taking a chance on someone arbitrarily deciding he wants to roll our balls around in his hands. Right? Next thing you know, we'll be walled in like Europe wants to do (either virtually or physically) and our freedom of movement will be a thing of the past. Again, "exceptional circumstances."

    The biggest problem with the immigration debate is that people generally view the terms of controversy one-dimensionally. From a nationalist perspective instead of relaxing and logically evaluating what is going on abroad. Is what it is, though.

    But that was a great point you made there. And relevant when placed into perspective with goings-on abroad with partner nations. I think that's the best line of view to predict how the brder rules in North America are going to go down. Likely later than sooner yet not overly long-term. But still...
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-28-2016 at 06:09 AM.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    great thread. i've often wondered about his immigration policy. something else I'm interested in is his extreme state's rights views. apparently he believes in an interpretation of the bill of rights that was pre-Civil War that said the states could make laws that violated the federal government. the constitution only applies to the federal government

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesse James View Post
    great thread. i've often wondered about his immigration policy. something else I'm interested in is his extreme state's rights views. apparently he believes in an interpretation of the bill of rights that was pre-Civil War that said the states could make laws that violated the federal government. the constitution only applies to the federal government
    Governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed."

    Limited for Liberty...



    Here - read this book. Read the whole thing. All of it. Click on every chapter. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6197351

    Seriously. It's a good book.

    And not only that, but, as was mentioned some place in this thread, immigrants (and, unfortunately, many Americans as well) really don't know or understand basic American founding principles. As was mentioned, intelligent choice requires primarily thorough knowledge of these principles.

    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-28-2016 at 07:09 AM.

  16. #43
    I do remember him writing something favorable about "the free movement of people" in FREEDOM: Under Siege. FWIW, that book came out 3 months after he announced he was running for the LP nomination. I think Dr. Paul's main problem right now is the welfare state. I absolutely agree with him on that. I think the debate can only be hypothetical until we get rid of the welfare state. I like his idea to put troops on the border as well, not necessarily to stop immigration, but it'd be nice to see our defense policy actually start moving towards defense. Dr. Paul has been as principled of a non-interventionist as you'll find, but he's also always advocated a strong defense. Remember, he supported S.D.I. and opposed SALT II. I believe a strong defense is essential to liberty because liberty must be protected. While we won't be in as much danger if we don't give enemies reasons to attack us, it'd be naive to think we're the only aggressive nation and even if we became a libertarian society now, we've already made a lot of enemies. Back to Dr. Paul on immigration, I think sovereignty is a big issue for him and I see why. We're supposed to be a republic after all, not the rest of the world. But "free movement of people" doesn't necessarily mean citizenship. It could be more about visiting when you want. He did say that in a true libertarian society, citizenship wouldn't necessarily be valued so much.

  17. #44
    Here's a quote from FREEDOM Under Siege describing what would happen in a free society just to provide context: "Instead of aliens being resented, they would be welcomed to serve our needs as our standard of living increases." He goes on to say: "A free society guarantees freedom of movement and, above all, absolute privacy." He goes on to say in the next paragraph: "A free society offers the greatest chance for world peace. Free movement of people, goods, and ideas across borders makes a lot more sense than the uncontrolled sale and transfer of weapons across borders."

    Granted, this doesn't necessarily give any opinion about citizenship as he could just be referring to visiting. It's also possible he might favor open borders in an ideal world (i.e., a free society without a welfare state, mass unemployment etc.) but objects to it in the current reality because it'd make those problems worse. Either way, I hope these quotes from 1987 help.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesse James View Post
    great thread. i've often wondered about his immigration policy. something else I'm interested in is his extreme state's rights views. apparently he believes in an interpretation of the bill of rights that was pre-Civil War that said the states could make laws that violated the federal government. the constitution only applies to the federal government
    The Bill of Rights cannot mean what it never meant. If there is a "new interpretation," then that interpretation is wrong.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    The Bill of Rights cannot mean what it never meant. If there is a "new interpretation," then that interpretation is wrong.
    Exactly, as Larry McDonald said, the principle the entire constitution is based on is that the intent of the law maker is the law. Otherwise, it'd be meaningless for obvious reasons.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •