So let's see. A large part of this forum is absolutely convinced that the mass waves of immigration from central America represent an "invasion." With that said, I'm surprised that some resist the idea that rather than risking an expansion of the police state in the United States or worse, martial law inside the United States, that we should deploy troops south of the U.S. border because "nation building."
Well...if we go with the invasion analogy, if China established a beach head in Guatemala and started pushing its way north with a clear intention of entering the U.S., would anyone really be against helping Mexico stop the Chinese advance while it was still in Mexico? That, to me anyway, makes no sense. I know Ron Paul said when he was running that he supported troops defending our border over having them defend the Iraqi border. I think getting troops out of places like Iraq, no matter what the excuse, is a good thing. But look at what Ron says here at 16:15
"I don't like militarization around the world and I especially don't like it on our border."
You can be against illegal immigration and be against a police state to fight it. See:
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us