Ron Paul's immigration position from 2007

[invisible]

We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country

You keep quoting this line, as if you think it means Ron Paul would implement policies that he specifically campaigned against. No matter how much you want to repeat this, it doesn't make Ron Paul into trump, or vice versa.

Only by your warped definition.

When you have government goons stopping people with no probable cause who are nowhere near the border, and demanding "papers, please" at gunpoint, that is literally one of the defining hallmarks of a "papers, please" police state. To think otherwise is what is warped.

It's the best available option.

More direct opposition to Ron Paul.

Trump is doing quite a bit to reduce welfare

A drop in the bucket, a bit of nibbling around the edges. The overall amount of out tax dollars spent on welfare hasn't decreased by any significant percentage. Your Authoritarian Idol has even offered welfare to immigrants from certain countries.

Leftist idiocy

Your implication that it is somehow conservative to waste our tax dollars abusing people in concentration camps is quite amusing.

it's not a concentration camp if you can go home

You must have missed my response to this the first time in post #24, so I'll quote it for you again:

Next we have the ludicrous claim that a concentration camp is not a concentration camp, and that the people being held and abused in them can just leave anytime. What do you call them, then? Jails? "Detention centers"? No matter what euphemism you want to attempt to whitewash what they really are, any description of the conditions in these places, and the abuse of those being held, shows them to be far worse than any jail, there is absolutely no question that they are nothing less than concentration camps. Your claim that those being held there can just leave anytime is laughable, these places would be empty if that were true, and those locked doors, gates, and barbed wire fences must just be there for decoration. By definition, a concentration camp, jail, or "detention center" is designed to keep people from leaving it. Instead of simply deporting illegal immigrants quickly; building, maintaining, and staffing these places, abusing and feeding those held there, is all being paid for by our tax dollars. You claim to oppose the police state, yet rather than voice one word of opposition to trump doing this, you attempt to claim that a concentration camp is not a concentration camp and that those being held there can leave anytime they want.

no policy of abuse

If this is true, then surely those responsible for the abuse are getting fired and prosecuted for it.

People are a product of their culture, they may vary but they are always affected by it

If this is true, then diversity of beliefs, including political beliefs, would not exist in our own country.

immigration is a group question because we can't read their minds.

You claim to read people's minds all the time, by constantly stating your collectivist claim that immigrants are socialists. The only way that immigration is a group question is a matter of policy (as to what extent it is allowed or not, and conditions required of legal immigrants), which has nothing to do with collectivist claims that individuals' political beliefs have anything to do with culture or where someone is from (which are not even necessarily the same thing).

[Superfluous Man]

You keep quoting this line, as if you think it means Ron Paul would implement policies that he specifically campaigned against. No matter how much you want to repeat this, it doesn't make Ron Paul into trump, or vice versa.

Exactly. We have plenty to go on for what Ron Paul's views were and are with respect to immigration policy. We're not limited to just a few cherry-picked sound bytes that were written for campaign purposes and that are lacking in policy specifics. What immigration restrictionists always do is bring in a host of assumptions about what the phrase "border control" means and cling to those assumptions so stubbornly as to think that anybody who says they're for border control without being for their pet policies is lying.

[nikcers]

Exactly. We have plenty to go on for what Ron Paul's views were and are with respect to immigration policy. We're not limited to just a few cherry-picked sound bytes that were written for campaign purposes and that are lacking in policy specifics. What immigration restrictionists always do is bring in a host of assumptions about what the phrase "border control" means and cling to those assumptions so stubbornly as to think that anybody who says they're for border control without being for their pet policies is lying.

how about this. Is this cherrypicking the phrase border control "We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all" ""Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country" "taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services."

[Superfluous Man]

how about this is the cherrypicking the phrase border control "We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all ""Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country" "taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services."

Those are all great examples of what I was talking about. Notice that none of those actually contradict his pro-immigration policies. But immigration restrictionists who want to pretend he's in their camp will take them that way regardless.

[nikcers]

Those are all great examples of what I was talking about. Notice that none of those actually contradict his pro-immigration policies. But immigration restrictionists who want to pretend he's in their camp will take them that way regardless.

Those are his policies when he ran for president. Are you calling Ron Paul a liar? Did he lie about his policies that he was going to run on when he ran for president?

[Superfluous Man]

Those are his policies when he ran for president. Are you calling Ron Paul a liar? Did he lie about his policies that he was going to run on when he ran for president?

This is a great case in point.

See what I'm saying, folks? So this guy sees Ron Paul use phrases like "secure borders" and he just assumes that those phrases must mean that Ron Paul supports the immigration restriction policies that he thinks of when he hears those phrases. And if Ron Paul doesn't support those policies, then his using those phrases would make him a liar.

Despite the fact that phrases like those aren't articulations of a specific policy, and none of the sound bites quoted actually say anything in contradiction of Ron Paul's well-known pro-immigration policies.

[nikcers]

This is a great case in point.

See what I'm saying, folks? So this guy sees Ron Paul use phrases like "secure borders" and he just assumes that those phrases must mean that Ron Paul supports the immigration restriction policies that he thinks of when he hears those phrases. And if Ron Paul doesn't support those policies, then his using those phrases would make him a liar.

Despite the fact that phrases like those aren't articulations of a specific policy, and none of the sound bites quoted actually say anything in contradiction of Ron Paul's well-known pro-immigration policies.

Physically control all entry into this country isn't "secure borders"... now you are lying or not reading.

[invisible]

Those are all great examples of what I was talking about. Notice that none of those actually contradict his pro-immigration policies. But immigration restrictionists who want to pretend he's in their camp will take them that way regardless.

Ron Paul is not pro-immigration. Nor is he against it. He simply recognizes that the system is broken and needs to be reformed, that the current system does nothing but offer incentives to break the law, and costs the taxpayers money.

"Border control" means whatever policies are in effect. It's meanlingless to talk about border control, without talking policy. Borders define a country, if you didn't have borders, you wouldn't have a country. However, enforcing borders does not, by definition, necessarily mean erecting a police state, the those two terms are completely separate from each other. It is the trumpettes and shylls that are trying to argue for expansion of the big government police state, under the guise of border control.

[Superfluous Man]

Physically control all entry into this country isn't "secure borders"... now you are lying or not reading.

When did I ever say that? Go back and reread what I said.

But notice that there's nothing about his support for physically controlling entry that implies that he would not support a policy of admitting everyone who comes here peacefully wanting to work and not live off welfare, as he has repeatedly said he would.

To extrapolate an anti-immigration position from what you quoted is to read into it something that isn't there.

[Superfluous Man]

Ron Paul is not pro-immigration.

How is he not pro-immigration?

[nikcers]

Ron Paul is not pro-immigration. Nor is he against it. He simply recognizes that the system is broken and needs to be reformed, that the current system does nothing but offer incentives to break the law, and costs the taxpayers money.

"Border control" means whatever policies are in effect. It's meanlingless to talk about border control, without talking policy. Borders define a country, if you didn't have borders, you wouldn't have a country. However, enforcing borders does not, by definition, necessarily mean erecting a police state, the those two terms are completely separate from each other. It is the trumpettes and shylls that are trying to argue for expansion of the big government police state, under the guise of border control.

If physically controlling all entry into this country is a police state to you than you don't want to control all entry into this country. I guess you are just for open borders than and Ron Paul clearly was not.

[invisible]

If physically controlling all entry into this country is a police state to you than you don't want to control all entry into this country. I guess you are just for open borders than and Ron Paul clearly was not.

I didn't say that, by any means. The border can be physically controlled without expanding the big government police state. Ron Paul campaigned on bringing our troops home from enforcing the borders of other countries, so that they could be put on our borders to enforce them. And he campaigned against the big government police state. Ron Paul is a perfect example of how our borders can be enforced without expansion of the big government police state.

[Superfluous Man]

If physically controlling all entry into this country is a police state to you than you don't want to control all entry into this country.

It isn't.

And that's the problem. Ron Paul has never supported a police state. But immigration restrictionists who are trying to paint him as one of themselves do support a police state.

It's dishonest for them to take quotes like that as evidence that Ron Paul is on their side.

[nikcers]

It isn't.

And that's the problem. Ron Paul has never supported a police state. But immigration restrictionists who are trying to paint him as one of themselves do support a police state.

It's dishonest for them to take quotes like that as evidence that Ron Paul is on their side.

I've listened to pretty much Everything Ron Paul and Rand Paul have said. Even Rand Paul has argued for physically controlling entry into this country through different means. Rand Paul has said multiple times that we need to stop the flow of illegal immigration before any immigration reform or securing the border, basically what Ron Paul's platform said. Ron Paul says that the only thing that he has changed his mind on in regards to policy is the death pentalty because he doesn't trust the justice system we have and thinks they would kill innocent people.

[nikcers]

I didn't say that, by any means. The border can be physically controlled without expanding the big government police state. Ron Paul campaigned on bringing our troops home from enforcing the borders of other countries, so that they could be put on our borders to enforce them. And he campaigned against the big government police state. Ron Paul is a perfect example of how our borders can be enforced without expansion of the big government police state.

Are you saying that you couldn't imply that putting military troops on our border to secure it is a police state? LOL

[PAF]

If physically controlling all entry into this country is a police state to you than you don't want to control all entry into this country. I guess you are just for open borders than and Ron Paul clearly was not.

Our "border" consists of the Bill of Rights, which shall not be infringed. To turn this into a Police State with walls, requiring "papers please", "turn companies in", taking rightful private property giving control to the Fed, and lining the pockets of the lobbyist/contractors which build such apparatus, is NOT what Ron advocates. Ron has stated many, many times to end the Welfare/Incentives which does not violate the Bill of Rights.

Please watch Ron's videos. He is very clear about this.

[nikcers]

Our "border" consists of the Bill of Rights, which shall not be infringed. To turn this into a Police State with walls, requiring "papers please", "turn companies in", taking rightful private property giving control to the Fed, and lining the pockets of the lobbyist/contractors which build such apparatus, is NOT what Ron advocates. Ron has stated many, many times to end the Welfare/Incentives which does not violate the Bill of Rights.

Please watch Ron's videos. He is very clear about this.

You are just cherry picking now. How do you stop the poeple from coming here who don't have papers without closing the border entirely if you don't ask for the parpers? How do you physically stop illegal immigration into this country if you can't ask people to verify if they are legal. Maybe if you can get the rest of Ron Paul's immigration platform passed where he says that there is no more birthright citizenship and welfare and enforcing visa rules. Thats where you get the system where you don't have to verify if people are legal when they come over the border because they will stop coming here by the million

[Superfluous Man]

I've listened to pretty much Everything Ron Paul and Rand Paul have said. Even Rand Paul has argued for physically controlling entry into this country through different means. Rand Paul has said multiple times that we need to stop the flow of illegal immigration before any immigration reform or securing the border, basically what Ron Paul's platform said. Ron Paul says that the only thing that he has changed his mind on in regards to policy is the death pentalty because he doesn't trust the justice system we have and thinks they would kill innocent people.

Ron is not as much of an immigration restrictionist as Rand. But I'm not sure why you keep harping on that phrase "physically controlling entry." Has anyone in this thread disputed that phrase?

The problem is when you extrapolate immigration restriction from it.

[Superfluous Man]

You are just cherry picking now. How do you stop the poeple from coming here who don't have papers without closing the border entirely if you don't ask for the parpers?

Notice that Ron Paul never said that he would stop people who lacked papers from coming here.

This is an example of just what I was saying. You see Ron Paul say one thing, and in your mind, because of the assumptions you make, you think he means something else.

[nikcers]

Ron is not as much of an immigration restrictionist as Rand. But I'm not sure why you keep harping on that phrase "physically controlling entry." Has anyone in this thread disputed that phrase?

The problem is when you extrapolate immigration restriction from it.

The problem is you take soundbytes of Ron Paul speaking you only listen to what you want to. If you actually looked at his platform that was posted you would understand that Ron Paul is for both things. He is for making sure people don't come here illegally in order to become citizens if you look at his ideas entirely. You want to look at where he describes parts of what he is wanting to do and not everything. Yes he wants a reformed immigration system where they don't get welfare benefits, but he has called for securing the border before immigration law is fixed. Rand has said the same, the only difference is because Trump said it and didn't explain something that would take 20 minutes to explain you don't like it.

[Superfluous Man]

The problem what you take soundbytes of Ron Paul speaking you only listen to what you want to. If you actually looked at his platform that was posted you would understand that Ron Paul is for both things. He is for making sure people don't come here illegally in order to become citizens if you look at his ideas entirely. You want to look at where he describes parts of what he is wanting to do and not everything. Yes he wants a reformed immigration system where they don't get welfare benefits, but he has called for securing the border before immigration law is fixed. Rand has said the same, the only difference is because Trump said it and didn't explain something that would take 20 minutes to explain you don't like it.

You have it backwards. I'm the one who's not doing that. If you want to give an honest portrayal of Ron Paul's immigration policies, you can't just cherry pick sound bytes. You have to look at all of what he's said over the years.

[nikcers]

Notice that Ron Paul never said that he would stop people who lacked papers from coming here.

This is an example of just what I was saying. You see Ron Paul say one thing, and in your mind, because of the assumptions you make, you think he means something else.

He has said it, when he ran for president. He just thinks that real immigration reform can get passed so that you don't need to as well. He also has said physically stopping them from coming here before we get reform is necessary, he said that in the debates, he said that on his policy page when he ran for president.

[PAF]

You are just cherry picking now. How do you stop the poeple from coming here who don't have papers without closing the border entirely if you don't ask for the parpers? How do you physically stop illegal immigration into this country if you can't ask people to verify if they are legal. Maybe if you can get the rest of Ron Paul's immigration platform passed where he says that there is no more birthright citizenship and welfare and enforcing visa rules. Thats where you get the system where you don't have to verify if people are legal when they come over the border because they will stop coming here by the million

Ending birth right "citizenship" and stopping the welfare/incentives would in fact make a reduction - WITHOUT violating the Bill of Rights. Are you suggesting that Ron advocates tossing the Bill of Rights aside to accomplish a "goal"? Are you suggesting that Ron advocates "papers please" and physical barriers, and stopping people from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Are you suggesting that Ron does not understand the $1 BILLION *per day* economy that the border contributes? Are you suggesting that Ron advocates the elimination of Contract Rights in order to turn businesses in who do not "comply" with the Fed.gov?

I have stated many times before, one either understands liberty from within, or they do not.

[nikcers]

You have it backwards. I'm the one who's not doing that. If you want to give an honest portrayal of Ron Paul's immigration policies, you can't just cherry pick sound bytes. You have to look at all of what he's said over the years.

He doesn't change policy over the years. The only thing he has changed his position on is the death penalty. Thats what he said in 2011, after he ran for president and said that without immigration reform we need to secure the border and control entry into our country.

[nikcers]

Ending birth right "citizenship" and stopping the welfare/incentives would in fact make a reduction - WITHOUT violating the Bill of Rights. Are you suggesting that Ron advocates tossing the Bill of Rights aside to accomplish a "goal"? Are you suggesting that Ron advocates "papers please" and physical barriers, and stopping people from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Are you suggesting that Ron does not understand the $1 BILLION *per day* economy that the border contributes? Are you suggesting that Ron advocates the elimination of Contract Rights in order to turn businesses in who do not "comply" with the Fed.gov?

I have stated many times before, one either understands liberty from within, or they do not.

Yeah but that is impossible with todays congress. That's why in 2008 he said before immigration reform is done we need to do whatever it takes, specifically his policy said "control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals."

[Superfluous Man]

He has said it, when he ran for president.

Source?

[nikcers]

"We must do whatever it takes"

[Superfluous Man]

He doesn't change policy over the years.

I agree.

Therefore, it's just as invisible said up above: You can't take those sound bytes and extrapolate from them that Ron Paul was for a policy that he has explicitly said he opposes over and over again.

[nikcers]

Source?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vANwhJZa5s

[Superfluous Man]

"We must do whatever it takes"

Notice he didn't say, "We must do whatever nikcers thinks it takes."

You have to allow Ron Paul himself to explain what policies he has in mind. And he's given us plenty of explanations of that over the years.