Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 301 to 329 of 329

Thread: Ron Paul's immigration position from 2007

  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by Qdog View Post
    From reading this thread it seems like we have two opposing camps:

    Group 1: "Hey we love our country, and I think we need a border that is enforced for our nation to exist"
    Group 2: "$#@! the police, open borders ftw, Im more libertarian than you you statist trash! Lets play retarded word games that amount to nonsense, and make sure we never win or accomplish anything so that we can sit in our basements and whine forever!!"
    And group 2 wants to throw group 1 off the site for supporting Ron's position that attracted them in the first place.

    That's why I keep this bumped to remind everyone what Ron's position was.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #302
    Its probably been said better by others... but I am completely repulsed by the the victim mentality that is so pervasive in this community. Like guys that don't actually want to win or effect change. They just want to bitch. They want to sit and preach about how idealogically pure they are, but are unwilling to get their hands dirty in the real world.

  4. #303
    Quote Originally Posted by Qdog View Post
    Its probably been said better by others... but I am completely repulsed by the the victim mentality that is so pervasive in this community. Like guys that don't actually want to win or effect change. They just want to bitch. They want to sit and preach about how idealogically pure they are, but are unwilling to get their hands dirty in the real world.
    They want theoretical perfection that ignores the unchanging nature of man.
    They think they can create a "New Anarchist Man".

    And they want it all now with no transition to make it possible and not destructive.


  5. #304
    Ron Paul's position from 2007:

    The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:




    • Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    • Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    • No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    • No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    • End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    • Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.




    http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


    "I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007


    http://archive.is/HW9aj

    MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
    MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
    REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #305
    What is Ron Paul's position today?

    “I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they’re the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state,” Paul told the group. “In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

    “Now there’s a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants,” he continued. “You say, no not immigrants, it’s just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy.”

    Paul said he’s not one of those politicians who believes that “barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems.” That’s not, he said, the American way. And he doesn’t think that a national identification card is the way to go.
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...201-story.html


    https://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

    Give illegals limbo status: a green card with an asterisk

    Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.
    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.156 , Apr 19, 2011

    Sending 12M illegals home won't & shouldn't happen

    Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws. The first choice--sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home--isn't going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico.
    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.153 , Apr 19, 2011

    If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem

    Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.

    A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

    No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important

    Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?
    PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.

  8. #306
    Ron Paul's position from 2007:

    The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:





    • Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    • Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    • No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    • No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    • End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    • Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.





    http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


    "I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007


    http://archive.is/HW9aj

    MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
    MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
    REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

  9. #307
    What is Ron Paul's position today?

    “I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they’re the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state,” Paul told the group. “In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

    “Now there’s a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants,” he continued. “You say, no not immigrants, it’s just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy.”

    Paul said he’s not one of those politicians who believes that “barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems.” That’s not, he said, the American way. And he doesn’t think that a national identification card is the way to go.
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...201-story.html


    https://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

    Give illegals limbo status: a green card with an asterisk

    Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.
    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.156 , Apr 19, 2011

    Sending 12M illegals home won't & shouldn't happen

    Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws. The first choice--sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home--isn't going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico.
    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.153 , Apr 19, 2011

    If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem

    Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.

    A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

    No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important

    Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?
    PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.

  10. #308
    Ron Paul's position from 2007:

    The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:





    • Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    • Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    • No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    • No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    • End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    • Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.





    http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


    "I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007


    http://archive.is/HW9aj

    MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
    MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
    REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

  11. #309
    Ron Paul's position from 2007:

    The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:






    • Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    • Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    • No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    • No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    • End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    • Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.






    http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


    "I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007


    http://archive.is/HW9aj

    MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
    MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
    REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

  12. #310
    What is Ron Paul's position today?

    “I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they’re the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state,” Paul told the group. “In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

    “Now there’s a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants,” he continued. “You say, no not immigrants, it’s just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy.”

    Paul said he’s not one of those politicians who believes that “barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems.” That’s not, he said, the American way. And he doesn’t think that a national identification card is the way to go.
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...201-story.html


    https://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

    Give illegals limbo status: a green card with an asterisk

    Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.
    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.156 , Apr 19, 2011

    Sending 12M illegals home won't & shouldn't happen

    Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws. The first choice--sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home--isn't going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico.
    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.153 , Apr 19, 2011

    If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem

    Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.

    A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

    No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important

    Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?
    PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.

  13. #311
    Ron Paul's position from 2007:

    The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:







    • Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    • Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    • No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    • No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    • End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    • Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.







    http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


    "I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007


    http://archive.is/HW9aj

    MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
    MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
    REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

  14. #312
    Boring.

    What is Ron Paul's position today?

    “I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they’re the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state,” Paul told the group. “In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

    “Now there’s a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants,” he continued. “You say, no not immigrants, it’s just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy.”

    Paul said he’s not one of those politicians who believes that “barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems.” That’s not, he said, the American way. And he doesn’t think that a national identification card is the way to go.
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...201-story.html


    https://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

    Give illegals limbo status: a green card with an asterisk

    Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.
    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.156 , Apr 19, 2011

    Sending 12M illegals home won't & shouldn't happen

    Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws. The first choice--sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home--isn't going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico.
    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.153 , Apr 19, 2011

    If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem

    Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.

    A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

    No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important

    Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?
    PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #313
    Ron Paul's position from 2007:

    The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:





    • Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    • Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    • No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    • No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    • End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    • Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.





    http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


    "I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007


    http://archive.is/HW9aj

    MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
    MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
    REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

  17. #314
    Boring.

    What is Ron Paul's position today?

    “I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they’re the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state,” Paul told the group. “In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

    “Now there’s a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants,” he continued. “You say, no not immigrants, it’s just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy.”

    Paul said he’s not one of those politicians who believes that “barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems.” That’s not, he said, the American way. And he doesn’t think that a national identification card is the way to go.
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...201-story.html


    https://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

    Give illegals limbo status: a green card with an asterisk

    Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.
    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.156 , Apr 19, 2011

    Sending 12M illegals home won't & shouldn't happen

    Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws. The first choice--sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home--isn't going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico.
    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.153 , Apr 19, 2011

    If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem

    Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.

    A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

    No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important

    Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?
    PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.

  18. #315
    Ron Paul's position from 2007:

    The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:






    • Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    • Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    • No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    • No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    • End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    • Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.






    http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


    "I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007


    http://archive.is/HW9aj

    MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
    MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
    REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

  19. #316
    Ron Paul's position from 2007:

    The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:







    • Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    • Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    • No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    • No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    • End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    • Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.







    http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


    "I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007


    http://archive.is/HW9aj

    MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
    MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
    REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

  20. #317
    Boring.

    What is Ron Paul's position today?

    “I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they’re the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state,” Paul told the group. “In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

    “Now there’s a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants,” he continued. “You say, no not immigrants, it’s just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy.”

    Paul said he’s not one of those politicians who believes that “barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems.” That’s not, he said, the American way. And he doesn’t think that a national identification card is the way to go.
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...201-story.html


    https://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

    Give illegals limbo status: a green card with an asterisk

    Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.
    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.156 , Apr 19, 2011

    Sending 12M illegals home won't & shouldn't happen

    Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws. The first choice--sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home--isn't going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico.
    Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.153 , Apr 19, 2011

    If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem

    Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.

    A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

    No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important

    Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?
    PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.

  21. #318
    Ron Paul's position from 2007:

    The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:






    • Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    • Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    • No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    • No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    • End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    • Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.






    http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


    "I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007


    http://archive.is/HW9aj

    MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
    MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
    REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

  22. #319

  23. #320
    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    zippyjuan got banned!?
    Yes....now we just have Ron's position from 2007



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    Yes....now we just have Ron's position from 2007
    Which was the entire point of the thread.
    This thread is to keep the anarchists from claiming that those who support border security and immigration controls don't belong on the site or in the movement.

  26. #322
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Which was the entire point of the thread.
    This thread is to keep the anarchists from claiming that those who support border security and immigration controls don't belong on the site or in the movement.
    While completely ignoring RP's current position.
    There is no spoon.

  27. #323
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    While completely ignoring RP's current position.
    The title of this thread makes it clear this is his position FROM 2007.
    This thread is to keep the anarchists from claiming that those who support border security and immigration controls don't belong on the site or in the movement.

  28. #324
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The title of this thread makes it clear this is his position FROM 2007.
    This thread is to keep the anarchists from claiming that those who support border security and immigration controls don't belong on the site or in the movement.
    Riiiiight.....
    Anarchism: What Is This Word Our Rulers Hate?
    By Patricia Neill

    July 3, 2013

    donate FacebookTwitterShare

    From Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (Based on the Broad Foundations Laid Down by Noah Webster): Anarchism: [from anarch, n. (Gr. anarchos, without head or chief.)] n. 1. the theory that formal government of any kind is uneccessary and wrong in principle; the doctrine and practice of anarchists. 2. anarchy; confusion; lawlessness.

    Webster’s 1847 edition, which I had the pleasure to see a while back, gave the etymology as private rule.

    Webster’s Unabridged again: Anarchy: [Gr. anarchia, lack of ruler or government, from anarchos, without chief or ruler, an private; and archos ruler.]

    Private rule. Formal government is uneccessary. That is, we rule ourselves. Each and every one of us, as adults, are capable of doing so. This is, after all, what we mean by adult. Without direction or laws from any outside source, except our Creator.

    All governments and people in entrenched positions of power fear this word and concept and treat it with the greatest of hate and loathing, for it would, you see, put them directly out of business. Our rulers have no desire to be put out of the business of telling us what to do and taxing us because they work so hard telling us what to do. Therefore, they have smeared and emasculated this word and concept every chance they got, down through the bloody centuries of human history until the connotations of "anarchy," self-rule, have come to mean lawlessness, bomb-throwing, disruptions, mayhem, riots, everything scary to a law-abiding citizen. This is how the word is currently used, although it means something entirely different, and always has. It means Rule Yourself.

    Listen to our rulers and others in power and you will hear them use this word often. Should there be a trial jury that decides upon its conscience that a law is unjust and unfair and so vote aquittal, listen to the rulers howl: "There will be anarchy!" Should the people decide not to send their children to public schools for the common sense reason that schools no longer teach anything worth learning, listen to the education bureaucrats howl: "There will be anarchy!" Should a colonial people decide to rule themselves according to the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, listen to the King howl: "There will be anarchy!" Should Americans wish to uphold their God-given right to bear arms, listen to the elites howl: "There is TOO MUCH FREEDOM! There will be anarchy!" In other words, you people cannot rule yourselves! WE must rule youu2014or else "there will be anarchy!"

    Home rule. Private rule. Self rule. Responsibility for self and family. Willingly taking on the care of ourselves. Limiting ourselves in times of hardship when we must, and going without. Defending our own lives and properties. Using the brains God gave us to learn what is best for us, and knowing in our hearts our Creator’s laws and most important of all, following them. This, it seems to me, is what is meant by self-rule, and forgive me, but by anarchy.

    And keeping the money that would be taken by "rulers," as taxes, to ourselves, thank you very much.

    Is it any wonder, really, that our rulers cry "anarchy" whenever the people seem like they might make a common sense decision, all by themselves, without all the layers of "experts," lawyers, doctors, clerics, professors, politicians and all the rest of the crass parasites of the "ruling class"? This ruling class did not become rich and powerful without a few tricks up their sleeves, after all, and a damn good propaganda wing, and without being willing to be as brutal as need be when they deemed it necessary to send us cowering into our corners, willing to hand over the fruits of our labors for their "government."

    The question is simple: can you govern yourself, or do you need to be governed?

    An immoral and irresponsible people are not capable of anarchy, of ruling themselves. However, there is no such thing as a perfectly moral and responsible people, though humans have come close a few times. There is no utopia here on Earth, but we can take a few steps in the right direction.

    As for me, I willingly submit to the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, but by God, I have an anarchistic heart. Let those who purport to be my rulers hear this.
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/...r-rulers-hate/
    There is no spoon.

  29. #325
    The only people I see flying anarchy flags these days, want to put me re-education camps or prison for doing my job keeping your lights on.

  30. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    The only people I see flying anarchy flags these days, want to put me re-education camps or prison for doing my job keeping your lights on.
    Exactly.

    Anarchy ALWAYS leads to severe tyranny.

  31. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Riiiiight.....
    Anarchism: What Is This Word Our Rulers Hate?

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/...r-rulers-hate/
    That has nothing to do with the point of this thread.

  32. #328
    Ron Paul's position from 2007:

    The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:







    • Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    • Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    • No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    • No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    • End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    • Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.







    http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


    "I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007


    http://archive.is/HW9aj

    MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
    MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
    REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    The only people I see flying anarchy flags these days, want to put me re-education camps or prison for doing my job keeping your lights on.
    Obviously it's people who have no idea what the term means.
    There is no spoon.

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011


Similar Threads

  1. Immigration: Site Issue Evaluation: Ron Paul's border / immigration position
    By Bryan in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 09-06-2016, 03:48 PM
  2. TRUMP POSITION: Immigration Reform
    By David Sadler in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 08-17-2015, 11:44 AM
  3. Walker Not Being Truthful on Immigration Position
    By AuH20 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 09:26 AM
  4. Obama's Position on Marijuana in November 2007
    By torchbearer in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 03:50 PM
  5. Issue: Immigration: 2007 Immigration Bill
    By RonPaul4President in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-12-2007, 07:25 PM

Posting Permissions

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