Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 56

Thread: Issue: Immigration: ron paul and illegal immigration

  1. #1

    Issue: Immigration: ron paul and illegal immigration

    I support 90% of what Ron Paul is saying. The only thing that I don't agree with is his hard-line position on illegal immigration. Especially the point about birthright citizenship because isn't that specifically in the Contitution. Removing birthright citizenship would weaken the Constitution. Anyway, is it possible to support Ron Paul without supporting his position on illegal immigration?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I don't agree with him on this either, but at least it will be a big draw to other Republicans during the primary.

  4. #3
    I support Ron Paul even though I prefer more open borders.

    He is such an awesome candidate I would still support him even if I disagreed with his view on many more things.

    The fact the he stands up for a set of principles called the Constitution makes him worth voting for over anyone, period.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by gaazn View Post
    Anyway, is it possible to support Ron Paul without supporting his position on illegal immigration?
    Yes, just as some prochoice people said they are voting for him because they believe the overall defense of the constitution, he will be the much greater good.

  6. #5
    Birthright citizenship was added to the Constitution in 1868 under the 14th amendment. Part of the reasoning at the time was to ensure children born of former slaves were considered citizens. I think the case could be made that birthright citizenship is no longer necessary. Many other modern countries do not have this. Would Ron Paul be in favor of modifying the 14th amendment?

  7. #6
    The fourteenth amendment says that people born in the US are automatically citizens. So how does this square with Ron Paul's platform? Easy, he wants to amend that amendment, using legal constitutional means to do so. The fourteenth amendment was meant to correct several constitutional injustices regarding the instutition of slavery. That birthright clause is no longer necessary.

    Ron Paul also says it is because we have become a welfare state that this clause has become problematic. If we didn't have cradle-to-grave largess for the children of illegal aliens, if we didn't actually accord them MORE rights than legal immigrants, then the birthright clause wouldn't much matter.

  8. #7
    Sure - people disagree here and there all the time but still come together because of the overall message being a good one. I have been around the Libertarian Party a long time and personally tend to hold a far more guarded stance regarding border security than many of my compatriates in the LP. If one little issue can turn you off of a candidate or group, you'll probably never vote.

  9. #8
    During one campaign, Mayor Ed Koch of New York, said [paraphrase], "If you agree with me 75%, vote for me. If you agree with me 100%, go see a shrink!"



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    I disagree with him on immigration also (IMO the most logical and laissez capitalist position is open borders).

    But that's just one issue.

    I think immigration is an issue where libertarians are split, on one side you have advocates of Austrian economics and market anarchism who want open borders because they believe it would bring us economic prosperity, and on the other side you have paleoconservatives who are more concerned with sovereignty.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    Sure - people disagree here and there all the time but still come together because of the overall message being a good one. I have been around the Libertarian Party a long time and personally tend to hold a far more guarded stance regarding border security than many of my compatriates in the LP. If one little issue can turn you off of a candidate or group, you'll probably never vote.
    You have no idea how many people I've come across who agree with Ron Paul on everything and think he's the read deal, sincere and just, etc... but won't support him because of one stupid little issue (gay marriage, abortion, etc).

    Like this guy: Ron Paul Sucks - TheAmazingAtheist

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by RedStripe View Post
    I support Ron Paul even though I prefer more open borders.

    He is such an awesome candidate I would still support him even if I disagreed with his view on many more things.

    The fact the he stands up for a set of principles called the Constitution makes him worth voting for over anyone, period.
    I'm glad you support Ron Paul, but I have to say I'm AMAZED how a Ron Paul supporter could support "more open borders", especially in light of what the elites in government have planned for this nation -- a third world makeover all in the name of cheap labor and cheap votes.

    Open borders in a welfare state leads to a dying nation. Leaving declining wages out of it, a recent Heritage Foundation report by Robert Rector found that the average immigrant family (both legal and illegal) cost the tax payers around $30,000 per year. And this is after accounting for what they've paid in. Having virtually open borders is a huge net loss for America, not to mention the threat to our sovereignty. The only people who benefit from the massive flow of immigrants are the employers; they can pay low wages and pass the cost on to the tax payers.

    The issue of illegal immigration can easily show you if the candidate is genuinely conservative and geniunely interested in America's welfare. Giuliani courted illegal immigrants during his time as mayor and actually sued to make NYC a sanctuary city -- this is borderline treason, and a blank check to corporate America at the expense of tax payers

    Apparently, Paul is drawing folks from the left because of his anti-war message, and that's great. But for those from the left, many of whom support open borders, what about the effect on our environment and quality of life?

    Ron Paul has THE best record on illegal immigration of any candidate other than Tom Tancredo. Dr. Paul is in Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus and Tancredo is in Paul's Liberty Caucus.

    For those familiar with the anti-ilegal immigration reform movement, Ron Paul probably has more supporters than any candidate other than Tom Tancredo (whose book In Mortal Danger is highly recommended).

    I love it that all kinds of people support Ron Paul. But I believe it's time for those coming from the left to take an honest look at what unchecked immigration (both illegal and legal) is doing to this nation. Dr. Paul certainly understands it.

    If you'd like to get informed, go to www.numbersusa.com and you'll find out just what the elites have in store for us if "comprehensive immigration reform" is passed, and if nothing is done to restore immigration to more traditional levels. The term "third world makeover" is an understatement.

    Also, I recommend reading Frost Wooldridge's "Next 100 Million Added Americans" articles at http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frostyA1.htm for a look at what the current crop of politicians has in store for us (particularly Bush and the Democrats).

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by gaazn View Post
    I support 90% of what Ron Paul is saying. The only thing that I don't agree with is his hard-line position on illegal immigration. Especially the point about birthright citizenship because isn't that specifically in the Contitution. Removing birthright citizenship would weaken the Constitution. Anyway, is it possible to support Ron Paul without supporting his position on illegal immigration?
    Comprehensive Immigration Reform that is now being touted is Bush's domestic version of Iraq, and far scarier and more damaging than interventionist foreign policies could possibly hope to be.

    Like Ron Paul believes, we need to restore immigration to traditional levels. If this new bill makes it through the House and Senate, it will change the face of this nation in one generation. Ron Paul opposes this treason, and for good reason. It will be the death of the middle class. As we import a whole other country we lose what holds us together as a nation, and liberal/neoconservative mantras like "diversity is our strength" are just Orwellian doublespeak for dissolving the current people and electing a new one.

    I support his stance on Iraq, but far and away I will vote for him because of his stance on illegal immigration and his opposition to trade deals that threaten our sovereignty.

  15. #13
    Yeah i disagree with him here too but at least he doesn't seem to be making it one of his major issues. No such thing as a perfect candidate but it doesn't really bother me too much.

  16. #14
    The man who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy, he is my friend.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Minuteman2008 View Post
    Open borders in a welfare state leads to a dying nation. Leaving declining wages out of it, a recent Heritage Foundation report by Robert Rector found that the average immigrant family (both legal and illegal) cost the tax payers around $30,000 per year. .
    To me this seems more like an argument against the welfare state than illegal immigration. Hell maybe increased immigration would help people realize the absurdity of it and it would die faster.

  18. #16
    I read an AP article today titled "They're U.S citizens; parents aren't" and it described the emotional difficulties of a family getting torn apart because the parents are deported. The children have to decide if they want to go back to their parent's home in Mexico in a violent, poor region or stay with relatives in the U.S and attend one of the top ranked schools in Palo Alto, CA.

    This is tough story of splitting a family apart, but it wouldn't happen in the first place if we changed the 14th amendment to remove birthright citizenship.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by gaazn View Post
    I support 90% of what Ron Paul is saying. The only thing that I don't agree with is his hard-line position on illegal immigration. Especially the point about birthright citizenship because isn't that specifically in the Contitution. Removing birthright citizenship would weaken the Constitution. Anyway, is it possible to support Ron Paul without supporting his position on illegal immigration?
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul344.html

    why would anyone not agree?
    ==============================
    Freespeechwisconsin.com

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by WhiteWhaleHolyGrail View Post
    I read an AP article today titled "They're U.S citizens; parents aren't" and it described the emotional difficulties of a family getting torn apart because the parents are deported. The children have to decide if they want to go back to their parent's home in Mexico in a violent, poor region or stay with relatives in the U.S and attend one of the top ranked schools in Palo Alto, CA.

    This is tough story of splitting a family apart, but it wouldn't happen in the first place if we changed the 14th amendment to remove birthright citizenship.
    Part of the problem is that the mainstream media won't accurately report on what is happening with the influx of illegals. The Associated Press is one of the worst offenders, and that's why you get sob stories from the point of view of the illegals. People have been indoctrinated with liberal and neoconservative viewpoints for so long, that many lack the willpower to demand that our laws be enforced. Instead of discussing specific points and taking an honest look at what is the largest trojan horse invasion in the history of the planet, we get watered down rhetoric about how inhumane it is to enforce the laws on the books.

    The 14th Amendment must be clarified. Too many take advantage of our generosity. And with politicians like Bush who only see America as a proposition nation, and not a real place, any hope of preserving traditional America is sinking.
    The neoconservative sees us as only consumers, not as people with any investment in kilth or kin. It is taboo to point out that some groups of people may never fully assimilate into America (and I bet a lot of anti-war leftists who just read that are put off). But we are going to, at some point, have to have an honest discussion as a nation about what kind of country we're going to be. And we can't truly be a color blind society when minorities are allowed to have an investment in their ethnic identity and Anglos aren't. This is one area where Tom Tancredo was right when he said we should abolish the ethnic based caucuses. They are divisive, and it is utterly hypocritical if our goal truly is to be a color blind society of Americans rather than hyphenated Americans.

    A major part of the problem, and why we haven't really tried to deal with the third world invasion is because of the ethnic lobbies and their power in Washington. Unchecked immigration leads to balkanization. If you look at www.numbersusa.com Ron Paul supports reducing legal immigration to traditional levels. It is actually a tradition to take a break from high immigration levels. Our last such break was between 1920 and 1965, and it allowed the melting pot to work its magic. It is that time again. The melting pot is broken. It's time to fix it. For too long we've allowed neocons and liberals to preach to us about the wonders of multiculturalism, and we've forgotten about unity and the melting pot and what it means to be only an American rather than a hyphenated American.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by DrKevorkian View Post
    To me this seems more like an argument against the welfare state than illegal immigration. Hell maybe increased immigration would help people realize the absurdity of it and it would die faster.
    Um, okay. The planet adds a net of 80 million people per year, mostly in "developing" countries. We cannot possibly make a dent in this, but we can, with open borders, destroy our own nation. You REALLY need to watch this video from www.numberusa.com to see where we're headed if we don't take a break from immigration. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...mbersusa&hl=en

    I'd love to hear people's reactions who to this video. Roy Beck, who made the video, is an environmentalist who talks about the numbers of people we're importing. Our native born are only reproducing at replacement levels, but our population is exploding because of immigration. This is a disaster in the making. I know some people have some type of open borders ideal because of their libertarian beliefs, but we have to take an honest look at this from the stand point of the kind of government we actually have, and from the standpoint of how population growth affects our quality of life. Please watch the video and decide for yourself. Yes, Iraq is an important issue, but it pales in comparison to what we're facing with virtually open borders.

  23. #20
    I'll shut up after this, but this article explains Paul's beliefs on immigration very well.
    The Immigration Question

    by Ron Paul
    by Ron Paul



    The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters’ cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.

    We’re often reminded that America is a nation of immigrants, implying that we’re coldhearted to restrict immigration in any way. But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again. They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality.

    Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago.

    We’re often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume – especially medical care.

    We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

    Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.

    Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.

    We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

  24. #21
    I think the position here is getting confused.

    If I have heard him correctly, he is trying to split the immigration issue into two topics:

    1. How much immigration should we have?
    2. How do we equitably enforce immigration?

    I have not heard RP say anything (to date) on point 1. What I understand him saying on point 2 is that we should have a fully enforced, equitable immigration policy. If we have quotas, they should be fair and even to all immigrants, without regard to special interests (such as H1B, etc).

    Cheap labor is a world economic *fact*. Denying immigrants on this ground is denying the fact that most people work at a lower wage. That's fine. If you want to make $20 or $30 or $40/hour, you can't do it by working an assembly line. America and Americans are better than that now. You should be managing, or designing an assembly line. You should be customizing commodity goods.

    We have immigration in this country because of economic reasons. That includes our liberties, and opportunity for money. We have catastrophic illegal immigration because Keynesian policies in Mexico have destroyed their economy, and socialist policies in this country have made it marginally attractive to non-working immigrants.

    I justify this on the grounds that Canada has a stable economy, and their social programs are far more "social" than ours. Hence, no Canadian immigration problem.

    The proper solution is two-fold. Help Mexico rebuild its economy using sound, classical economic solutions, and tie up the welfare loose ends.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by megiddo View Post
    I think the position here is getting confused.

    If I have heard him correctly, he is trying to split the immigration issue into two topics:

    1. How much immigration should we have?
    2. How do we equitably enforce immigration?

    I have not heard RP say anything (to date) on point 1. What I understand him saying on point 2 is that we should have a fully enforced, equitable immigration policy. If we have quotas, they should be fair and even to all immigrants, without regard to special interests (such as H1B, etc).

    Cheap labor is a world economic *fact*. Denying immigrants on this ground is denying the fact that most people work at a lower wage. That's fine. If you want to make $20 or $30 or $40/hour, you can't do it by working an assembly line. America and Americans are better than that now. You should be managing, or designing an assembly line. You should be customizing commodity goods.

    We have immigration in this country because of economic reasons. That includes our liberties, and opportunity for money. We have catastrophic illegal immigration because Keynesian policies in Mexico have destroyed their economy, and socialist policies in this country have made it marginally attractive to non-working immigrants.

    I justify this on the grounds that Canada has a stable economy, and their social programs are far more "social" than ours. Hence, no Canadian immigration problem.

    The proper solution is two-fold. Help Mexico rebuild its economy using sound, classical economic solutions, and tie up the welfare loose ends.
    He has indeed addressed number one. By "traditional levels", he and others expressed that they want the pre-1965 numbers of around 250,000 per year, which is replacement level -- around the same number entering as leaving.


    2005: Voted in favor of amendment to prohibit foreign-worker importation provisions in Free Trade Agreements
    Rep. Paul voted in favor of the Tancredo Amendment to H.R. 2862 to prevent the U.S. Trade Representative from including immigration provisions in Free Trade Agreements. The Tancredo Amendment failed by a vote of 106 to 322.
    I'm trying to find the bill that he voted for that mentioned "traditional" levels of immigration. He voted to end chain migration, etc. but there's another one out there (obviously it hasn't passed).
    Last edited by Minuteman2008; 05-21-2007 at 11:53 AM.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by gaazn View Post
    I support 90% of what Ron Paul is saying. The only thing that I don't agree with is his hard-line position on illegal immigration. Especially the point about birthright citizenship because isn't that specifically in the Contitution. Removing birthright citizenship would weaken the Constitution. Anyway, is it possible to support Ron Paul without supporting his position on illegal immigration?
    I agree with him 100% because it is being abused. What the current condition says to foreigners is that if you can sneak into America(which is illegal) you can have a baby here and become a legal U.S. citizen. This is absurd! The clause is too open-ended and vague. It needs to be reformed or removed to avoid abuse in the future.
    "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

    Religion divides humanity. Country enforces that division. Faith, nationalism and pride are the drugs of choice.

  27. #24
    Also, I would like to add that the fact that the Senate is NOW debating the immigration reform bill is redundant. We already have clearly defined laws pertaining to immigration.

    ENFORCE THE DARN LAWS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE! What good is making new laws when we aren't even enforcing the ones we have. Allowing the illegal immigrants that are here to have a path to citizenship is the worst thing you can do. It entices other foreigners to come here illegaly and hide out for 10-15 years so they too can be legal. This is a disgrace to the millions of immigrants that have gone through and are going through the process legally. It is like knowingly putting an infected bandage on an open wound to give the victims the impression that something is being done when in fact it is making things worse.

    Enforce the law. It's really that simple.
    "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

    Religion divides humanity. Country enforces that division. Faith, nationalism and pride are the drugs of choice.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25

    Unhappy

    for anyone interested in the reading the bill being proposed.

    my concern is section 112 on page 8

    page 210 doesnt sound good for national sovereignty with SPP mentioning.

    most of it sounds Authoritarian good but has some bad things in it. havent read whole thing. some stuff could be used towards Totalitarian wrong.

    around page 30 is talk of a commission and they get paid for by tax payers. even some freightening talk about political offiliation of the commission members.
    they have a life term on the commission.

    http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/...raft051807.pdf
    326 pages long

    It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
    James Madison

    the bill has pork on the commission it creates and it favors banks and corporate/commerce elites.
    sounds like new jobs in Mexico,Develope mexico add hospitals on the Mexican side of the border bring up mexico.

    some of it is good. then again the road to hell is paved with good intentions
    Last edited by mrapathy; 05-21-2007 at 04:34 PM.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by gaazn View Post
    I support 90% of what Ron Paul is saying. The only thing that I don't agree with is his hard-line position on illegal immigration. Especially the point about birthright citizenship because isn't that specifically in the Contitution. Removing birthright citizenship would weaken the Constitution. Anyway, is it possible to support Ron Paul without supporting his position on illegal immigration?
    Considering the others that are running against him in the Primary, he's a breath of fresh air, although Tom Tancredo is also a good candidate.

  31. #27
    That's the way I feel exactly too. Tancredo was actually my first choice before I found out more about Paul. I knew that Ron Paul was tough on border security after reading forums that discuss that topic. But I didn't realize how many things I agreed with him on in addition to his position on immigration.

    The only other one besides Paul and Tancredo that I like at all is Duncan Hunter. His positions on immigration and trade are identical to Paul and Tancredo, but I strongly disagree with him on the war. But he is an honest conservative with the record to back it up.

  32. #28
    You can point to as many neo-malthusian alarmist horror stories as you want but it won't change the fact that open borders and free trade go hand in hand. Just as freer trade enhances rather than cheapens american commerce, open borders enhance rather than cheapen our markets. Population growth is not the bane we have been told it is for over 150 years. In fact history has shown that population growth (e.g. 50's and 60's) is correlated with higher prosperity for the people.

    Saying that illegal immigrants break the law and thus must not be rewarded is circular reasoning. The law is justified because if we repealed it we would be rewarding those who broke it? Its absurd. Illegal immigrants are only illegal in the same way marijuana is illegal. If you believe both should be illegal its not absurd to 'reward' them with legality.

  33. #29
    "The immigration problem fundamentally is a welfare state problem. Some illegal immigrants – certainly not all – receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself. Since we have accepted a permanent welfare state, however, we cannot be surprised when some freeloaders and criminals are attracted to our shores. Welfare muddies the question of why immigrants want to come here."
    Ron Paul

    I'm going to have to agree with that. If we didnt have all this welfare it wouldnt be much of a problem.

  34. #30

    what a loser

    Quote Originally Posted by Melchior View Post
    You have no idea how many people I've come across who agree with Ron Paul on everything and think he's the read deal, sincere and just, etc... but won't support him because of one stupid little issue (gay marriage, abortion, etc).

    Like this guy: Ron Paul Sucks - TheAmazingAtheist
    Don't post links to a loser like that. It only gets him more views - geez. Just my 2 cents.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Illegal Immigration issue is key
    By melissa22 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 11-17-2008, 01:21 PM
  2. Illegal Immigration, need help on the issue
    By HarbingerOfTruth in forum National Sovereignty
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-13-2008, 05:59 AM
  3. If ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is an issue for you.
    By Lord Xar in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-17-2007, 02:16 PM
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-03-2007, 05:02 PM
  5. Issue: Immigration: Illegal immigration, is Pauls stance effective?
    By Lord Xar in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-14-2007, 09:15 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
  •