# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  No more student visas from terrorist nations?

## RonPaulCult

I just saw this in the new Ron Paul ad.  I think I'm going to be sick.  I thought the point of the Ron Paul foreign policy was not to judge other countries.  To label a country "terrorist" is no better than saying "axis of evil"

To make matters worse - most people from most countries are not terrorists.

A perfect example would be my girlfriend who is from Iran and hates her government.  She is studying in Spain on a STUDENT VISA and it has helped her escape the oppresion of her unfree country (where she at one point was jailed).  

I still agree with Ron Paul on almost every issue but this bothers me

----------


## paulpwns

troll

Paul tries to look strong on national defense and you criticize.

grow up

----------


## RonPaulCult

> troll
> 
> Paul tries to look strong on national defense and you criticize.
> 
> grow up


Right right - I'm a troll

Give me a break

----------


## fortilite

Enough of the troll labels.

But really, nothing wrong with nationality profiling visa applicants.

----------


## srmpass98

Troll? He raises a valid point and you deride him of being critical?

----------


## tomveil

> I just saw this in the new Ron Paul ad.  I think I'm going to be sick.  I thought the point of the Ron Paul foreign policy was not to judge other countries.  To label a country "terrorist" is no better than saying "axis of evil"
> 
> To make matters worse - most people from most countries are not terrorists.
> 
> A perfect example would be my girlfriend who is from Iran and hates her government.  She is studying in Spain on a STUDENT VISA and it has helped her escape the oppresion of her unfree country (where she at one point was jailed).  
> 
> I still agree with Ron Paul on almost every issue but this bothers me


Maybe actually read the bill he introduced.

Scrutiny is not blanket denial.

----------


## andy mcdee

If he is a troll then he is pretty dedicated, 500 posts?

----------


## tsetsefly

> troll
> 
> Paul tries to look strong on national defense and you criticize.
> 
> grow up


i dont think someone not liking an ad is being a troll.

There is a lot controversy over the amount of visas people from countries like saudi arabia get and people from european countries get. I might be completely wrong on this but didnt some of the 9-11 hijackers have student visas?

----------


## ctb619

> Maybe actually read the bill he introduced.
> 
> Scrutiny is not blanket denial.


I agree.  It's hard to elaborate on policy positions in a 30 second commercial.

----------


## fortilite

I think these forums are 99.9% troll free, no need to call people it.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Maybe actually read the bill he introduced.
> 
> Scrutiny is not blanket denial.


I would love to read the bill.  Could you help me locate it?

The ad says "NO MORE student Visa's from terrorist countries" so tht seems like blanket denial on the surfuce.

----------


## Micahyah

I understand your concern.

This has been Paul's consistent position.

Using it in the ad I think is more to pick up the immigration issue voters, which are sizeable in the GOP primary.

----------


## rich34

I think the ad is great.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> I understand your concern.
> 
> This has been Paul's consistent position.
> 
> Using it in the ad I think is more to pick up the immigration issue voters, which are sizeable in the GOP primary.


Yeah the sick part is while I disagree with it - I hope it raises support for him.  His presidency is my only hope of our country not droping bombs on my girlfriend's family.  

But still...

----------


## born2drv

> I just saw this in the new Ron Paul ad.  I think I'm going to be sick.  I thought the point of the Ron Paul foreign policy was not to judge other countries.  To label a country "terrorist" is no better than saying "axis of evil"
> 
> To make matters worse - most people from most countries are not terrorists.
> 
> A perfect example would be my girlfriend who is from Iran and hates her government.  She is studying in Spain on a STUDENT VISA and it has helped her escape the oppresion of her unfree country (where she at one point was jailed).  
> 
> I still agree with Ron Paul on almost every issue but this bothers me


My dad is from Syria, my mom from Lebanon. But I would support some barriers on giving student visas to nations that sponsor terrorists, or turn a blind eye to those that would harm America. This is something that directly threatens our nation and we have a right as a sovereign nation to defend ourselves, to scrutinize visitors more from other nations from certain parts of the world, etc. Since they are not American citizens they are not entitled to any special rights as far as I'm concerned, coming to this country is a privilege, and unfortunately for us middle easterners, this is something we will be forced to tolerate until we bring about reform in our own countries, without foreign involvement.

----------


## Give me liberty

> If he is a troll then he is pretty dedicated, 500 posts?


are you a troll? you only have 26 posts, and yes i agree enough of this troll labeling.

----------


## BigFatRock

He means nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists.  

Remember, most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and they used faulty passports to get in.

Consider this from Ron in October, 2001:

Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.

----------


## Nihilist23

I disagree with Paul on this, but I also realize what base he is trying to appeal to, and these are the people we need if he is going to have a chance of winning the Republican nomination.  So, I'm willing to overlook it for that reason.  It's dishonest but it's necessary.

----------


## hazek

I bet all my money if Ron had to explain that 4 seconds sound bite it would make perfect sense.


Personally I think it shows he isn't in blind denial of the threat that comes from the more unstable countries.

----------


## Micahyah

> Yeah the sick part is while I disagree with it - I hope it raises support for him.  His presidency is my only hope of our country not droping bombs on my girlfriend's family.  
> 
> But still...


I'm right with you.

I hope it helps him in Iowa and other states where it's a big issue for GOP primary voters, but I completely disagree with the position.

But I realize I won't agree with everything my candidate stands for.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> He means nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists.  
> 
> Remember, most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and they used faulty passports to get in.
> 
> Consider this from Ron in October, 2001:
> 
> Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.


Yikes that is horrible.  So if I ask my girlfriend to marry me she would not be granted a fiance visa because she comes from Iran?  So I wouldn't be able to live with my wife in America.  I hope Ron Paul doesn't stand for that.

----------


## tomveil

> Yikes that is horrible.  So if I ask my girlfriend to marry me she would not be granted a fiance visa because she comes from Iran?  So I wouldn't be able to live with my wife in America.  I hope Ron Paul doesn't stand for that.


Huh?

Student visas only, which are incrediblyeasy to get.  That's how the 9/11 terrorists got here.

----------


## Delivered4000

All of the following are listed as terrorist nations by the US:




* Cuba
* Iran
* Iraq
* Libya
* North Korea
* Sudan
* Syria

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Huh?
> 
> Student visas only, which are incrediblyeasy to get.  That's how the 9/11 terrorists got here.


It said "My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas"

That sounds like all immigration including tourist and fiance visas.

----------


## RonPaulCult

I'm sorry to post so much but - it should be mentioned that the quote is from 2001 where many of us felt differently than now.

Still I don't like what that ad said.  Our country is "friends" with Saudi Arabia and most of the hijackers came from that country.  But people from there could get student visas and people from Cuba could not.  

I think I need some explanation of this from our man Ron Paul.

----------


## Delivered4000

Talk about collectivism

----------


## Adamsa

> I agree.  It's hard to elaborate on policy positions in a 30 second commercial.


+1

Read Ron's bill.

----------


## atilla

come on people, don't you get it, he's talking about israel.

----------


## michaelwise

Give it a rest. This line is for the Fox News Hannity sheep. I like it.

----------


## tomveil

> It said "My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas"
> 
> That sounds like all immigration including tourist and fiance visas.


Restrict <> Ban

Personally, I'd like them to do homework, too.

I haven't heard anything about fiance visas.  Soon as I do, I'll let you know

----------


## atilla

> Yikes that is horrible.  So if I ask my girlfriend to marry me she would not be granted a fiance visa because she comes from Iran?  So I wouldn't be able to live with my wife in America.  I hope Ron Paul doesn't stand for that.


fiancee visas should be eliminated. if you want to get married, move. she won't last 6 months in the U.S. before she becomes just like an american woman.

----------


## RonPaulCult

Well looking into this more I am finding that Ron Paul wants to be more careful about who we let into this country - do stronger checks on them - and include more countries like Saudi Arabia in that mix.

I am all for it.  I think the ad is a little misleading though because it says "NO MORE student visas" and I don't think that is his position.

----------


## JMO

I think he is going to have trouble explaining this stance in a debate. He will be looked at as not being consistent with his stance of treating everyone the same.

----------


## srmpass98

So someone like me, who hails from Pakistan, would be refused a "student" visa on grounds of being from a country with alleged terrorism?

----------


## RonPaulCult

> fiancee visas should be eliminated. if you want to get married, move. she won't last 6 months in the U.S. before she becomes just like an american woman.


Haha I have moved.  I live in Spain with her currently.  I hope she'll never become too "american"

----------


## tomveil

> Well looking into this more I am finding that Ron Paul wants to be more careful about who we let into this country - do stronger checks on them - and include more countries like Saudi Arabia in that mix.
> 
> I am all for it.  I think the ad is a little misleading though because it says "NO MORE student visas" and I don't think that is his position.


Exactly.

----------


## tomveil

> So someone like me, who hails from Pakistan, would be refused a "student" visa on grounds of being from a country with alleged terrorism?


Probably not, but you'd certainly be looked into more closely before the decision is made.

Sorry, but it seems reasonable to me.

----------


## srmpass98

> Probably not, but you'd certainly be looked into more closely before the decision is made.
> 
> Sorry, but it seems reasonable to me.


Look, I'm not the sort of person who sensationalizes; I'm all for profiling. What the ad states pretty explicitly is the _denial_ of visas based on nationality. I find this stance outrageous given its obvious implications.

----------


## RonPaulCult

Just found this:

Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul recently introduced legislation that will make it more difficult for terrorists and potential terrorists to enter the United States using student visas. Paul’s bill will require the State department to apply close scrutiny to student and diversity visa applications submitted by individuals from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and other terror-sponsoring nations.

HR 488, the “Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003,” now sits before the House Judiciary committee. 

*Looks like the ad is wrong when it says NO MORE student visas.  I think HQ should correct this or he'll be accused of flip flopping*

----------


## tomveil

> Look, I'm not the sort of person who sensationalizes; I'm all for profiling. What the ad states pretty explicitly is the _denial_ of visas based on nationality. I find this stance outrageous given its obvious implications.


I would too, if it were what he was actually advocating.

Look at the bills he introduced, and you'll see this isn't the case.

----------


## srmpass98

> Just found this:
> 
> Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul recently introduced legislation that will make it more difficult for terrorists and potential terrorists to enter the United States using student visas. Pauls bill will require the State department to apply close scrutiny to student and diversity visa applications submitted by individuals from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and other terror-sponsoring nations.
> 
> HR 488, the Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003, now sits before the House Judiciary committee. 
> 
> *Looks like the ad is wrong when it says NO MORE student visas.  I think HQ should correct this or he'll be accused of flip flopping*


That is confusing because I can tell you with utmost certainty that this the current status quo with regards to applying for a visa in certain countries.

----------


## FreedomLover

> Well looking into this more I am finding that Ron Paul wants to be more careful about who we let into this country - do stronger checks on them - and include more countries like Saudi Arabia in that mix.
> 
> I am all for it.  I think the ad is a little misleading though because it says "NO MORE student visas" and I don't think that is his position.


Ron Paul wants to be tough on terror and republican voters really like this kind of talk, he doesn't want to come across as a pansy to an electorate that chews them up.

----------


## rollingpig

really? he always said he'd treat every country the same...who will define terrorist nations for us? the CIA?

----------


## stefans

> I just saw this in the new Ron Paul ad.  I think I'm going to be sick.  I thought the point of the Ron Paul foreign policy was not to judge other countries.  To label a country "terrorist" is no better than saying "axis of evil"
> 
> To make matters worse - most people from most countries are not terrorists.
> 
> A perfect example would be my girlfriend who is from Iran and hates her government.  She is studying in Spain on a STUDENT VISA and it has helped her escape the oppresion of her unfree country (where she at one point was jailed).  
> 
> I still agree with Ron Paul on almost every issue but this bothers me


how is this a troll post? stop the name calling.
however, I think it's perfectly fine that the US declines visas that may be a security risk. that's different from criminal law, you don't have to prove that someone is a risk. the US isn't responsible for the education and freedom of foreigners.

----------


## manuel

This is not an issue that would make me change my mind about my support for Ron Paul.  

I need the inflation issue addressed, I need the income tax issue addressed, and I need my rights secured once again.  And Ron Paul is the only one that will do something about all those things.

----------


## tomveil

> really? he always said he'd treat every country the same...who will define terrorist nations for us? the CIA?


This job is done by the State Department.

----------


## tomveil

> That is confusing because I can tell you with utmost certainty that this the current status quo with regards to applying for a visa in certain countries.


I agree, but I see nothing wrong with conducting additional checks.  (Edit Because obviously the previous standards didn't do their jobs.

----------


## srmpass98

> how is this a troll post? stop the name calling.
> however, I think it's perfectly fine that the US declines visas that may be a security risk. that's different from criminal law, you don't have to prove that someone is a risk. the US isn't responsible for the education and freedom of foreigners.


Declining visas on the merit of nationality is a far cry from what I believed Ron Paul's campaign stood for (individual liberties etc). Rather than judge applicants based on other perimeters, an explicit denial based on where they are born is a severely problematic position to espouse, much less support.

----------


## hvac ak47

Well if we follow Rons policys we wont have terrorist trying to kill us anymore. We would open dialog with the nations on the list and maybe actually become friends with them. After that remove them from the terrorist nations list. But right now we have to and should be very carefull of who we let in our country.

----------


## RonPaulCult

I'm finding conflicting information about this.  What is his current stance?  Does he believe in doing a better background check on people before coming in or does he believe in not allowing ANYBODY from these countries?

Also is it only for student visas for for ALL visas?  

And who would decide who is and who is not a terrorist state?

----------


## gang

I'm sorry, but terrorism has nothing to do with nationality. Neither all Iranians nor all Saudis are terrorists - as well as not all Americans are Neo-Cons. 

In my mind it's also not consistent with his approach, that we don't have rights because we belong to certain groups.

When it attracts Iowa Republicans - ok.
But I don't like it.

----------


## srmpass98

> I agree, but I see nothing wrong with conducting additional checks.


I don't either. Logic dictates that there must be more scrutiny and unfortunately its the price to pay for more security. What the ad suggests, and what I've gathered from individual responses even outside the forums is an unequivocal denial of visas to potential applicants for reasons as simple as nationality.

----------


## tomveil

> Declining visas on the merit of nationality is a far cry from what I believed Ron Paul's campaign stood for (individual liberties etc). Rather than judge applicants based on other perimeters, an explicit denial based on where they are born is a severely problematic position to espouse, much less support.


Good thing he's not advocating explicit denial based on where they are born, then.

----------


## rollingpig

> I'm sorry, but terrorism has nothing to do with nationality. Neither all Iranians nor all Saudis are terrorists - as well as not all Americans are Neo-Cons. 
> 
> In my mind it's also not consistent with his approach, that we don't have rights because we belong to certain groups.
> 
> When it attracts Iowa Republicans - ok.
> But I don't like it.


i agree, can someone youtube this AD?

----------


## srmpass98

> Good thing he's not advocating explicit denial based on where they are born, then.


I'm hoping you are correct. The ad and some other people suggest otherwise.

----------


## tomveil

> I'm hoping you are correct. The ad and some other people suggest otherwise.


Well, the ad is like 5 seconds worth of explaination.  Give him another minute, and I'm sure that there would be no confusion.

People on the internets seem to get carried away, and then intice others to get carried away as well.

----------


## stefans

> Declining visas on the merit of nationality is a far cry from what I believed Ron Paul's campaign stood for (individual liberties etc).


I'm sure there would be other parameters. it's a 30-second ad. basing it only on nationality doesn't make any sense.

but again, the US not responsible for the personal liberties of foreigners either.
it sounds harsh, but if you think you are responsible, you have to intervene. militarily eventually.

----------


## michaelwise

This is Brilliant! "No student visas from terrorist nations". I Hope the MSM take the bait and talk about this ad non-stop on Monday.

----------


## synthetic

These ads are meant to increase the base of Pauls support. You don't have to agree with the student visa line, its targeting a different segment of voter.

----------


## srmpass98

> Well, the ad is like 5 seconds worth of explaination.  Give him another minute, and I'm sure that there would be no confusion.
> 
> People on the internets seem to get carried away, and then intice others to get carried away as well.


Look, if I was getting carried away I'd call all the relevant people I've converted to Ron Paul in Seattle and would have started to vent to them. That is hardly the case. If anything I'm extremely calm and anxious to hear more than the usual. I'm the last person to judge prematurely.

----------


## RonPaulCult

Looks like it is only for student visas and diversity visas (the green card lottery)

It looks as though tourist, business and fiance visas are not included in this

http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=35633

I does look like a blanket denial of ALL student and diversity visas from those countries however.  

I don't stronger agree with this but I understand the reasons behind it. 

One final note - the legislation was from 2003.

----------


## james1844

> troll
> 
> Paul tries to look strong on national defense and you criticize.
> 
> grow up


What are you saying?  I'm no troll and I agree that the 'terrorist nations' statement is over the top.

----------


## tomveil

> From 2003:
> 
> http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2003/pr030503.htm
> 
> Paul Introduces Legislation to Restrict Student Visas
> 
> Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul recently introduced legislation that will make it *more difficult* for terrorists and potential terrorists to enter the United States using student visas. Paul’s bill will require the State department to apply *close scrutiny* to student and diversity visa applications submitted by individuals from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and other terror-sponsoring nations.
> 
> HR 488, the “Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003,” now sits before the House Judiciary committee.
> ...


(Emphasis mine)

----------


## Delivered4000

> I'm sorry, but terrorism has nothing to do with nationality. Neither all Iranians nor all Saudis are terrorists - as well as not all Americans are Neo-Cons. 
> 
> In my mind it's also not consistent with his approach, that we don't have rights because we belong to certain groups.
> 
> When it attracts Iowa Republicans - ok.
> But I don't like it.


Exactly

----------


## srmpass98

> These ads are meant to increase the base of Pauls support. You don't have to agree with the student visa line, its targeting a different segment of voter.


No, if history of this campaign suggests anything is that his ideas transcend the discourse, not the allusion that he has to "submit" to a base to appease a certain ideology.

----------


## adpierce

This is a foolish argument. This is probably my least favorite RP position... but I'm not overly concerned about it because the only nations under a RP presidency which would have student visa's excluded from them are nations that directly support terrorism against the U.S. That means Iran and Cuba will be probably not be on the terrorist watchdog list. These lists are more political than they are about our national security. With RP they would actually be tuned to focus on national security.

----------


## tomveil

> Look, if I was getting carried away I'd call all the relevant people I've converted to Ron Paul in Seattle and would have started to vent to them. That is hardly the case. If anything I'm extremely calm and anxious to hear more than the usual. I'm the last person to judge prematurely.


No, I'm not saying you were.  Just people who say OMG NO STUDENT VISAS, and then pass it off as truth, creating the snowball that's going on.

----------


## RonPaulCult

The bill seems to say that only the president himself can allow somebody a student or divirsity visa.  That's pretty much blanketed.

----------


## stefans

[QUOTE=tomveil;746994]


> From 2003:
> 
> http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2003/pr030503.htm
> 
> Paul Introduces Legislation to Restrict Student Visas
> 
> Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul recently introduced legislation that will make it *more difficult* for terrorists and potential terrorists to enter the United States using student visas. Pauls bill will require the State department to apply *close scrutiny* to student and diversity visa applications submitted by individuals from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and other terror-sponsoring nations.


thank you

----------


## tomveil

[QUOTE=stefans;747026]


> thank you


You're welcome

----------


## michaelwise

> From 2003:
> 
> http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2003/pr030503.htm
> 
> Paul Introduces Legislation to Restrict Student Visas
> 
> Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul recently introduced legislation that will make it more difficult for terrorists and potential terrorists to enter the United States using student visas. Paul’s bill will require the State department to apply close scrutiny to student and diversity visa applications submitted by individuals from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and other terror-sponsoring nations.
> 
> HR 488, the “Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003,” now sits before the House Judiciary committee.
> ...







> (Emphasis mine)


That's just crazy talk.

----------


## Real_CaGeD

He is showing the people that if there is a real terrorist threat the other candidates havent done a damn thing about it, open borders and they have no idea who is in the country.

----------


## Grandson of Liberty

I personally think it's a great idea, and a perfect non-violent motivation for other people in other countries to get their act together.

eta: should have been done years ago, and if the current administration was serious about a "war on terror," it would have been. It would have also secured the border.

----------


## Real_CaGeD

> I personally think it's a great idea, and a perfect non-violent motivation for other people in other countries to get their act together.
> 
> eta: should have been done years ago, and if the current administration was serious about a "war on terror," it would have been. Also would have secured the border.


It will make them effect change in their own country.

----------


## Grandson of Liberty

> It will make them effect change in their own country.


indeed.

----------


## tomveil

> It will make them effect change in their own country.


Well, hopefully our attitude twords them will change their attitude twords us, and we can take them off the list.

This, however, will not happen overnight.

----------


## rollingpig

i guess it's ok to show some toughness, just worried the neocons will call him inconsistent and a isolationist..

----------


## Ron LOL

Denying student visas for those from "terrorist nations" doesn't seem like an unreasonable policy to me.

----------


## srmpass98

> Denying student visas for those from "terrorist nations" doesn't seem like an unreasonable policy to me.


Right. So people like my friends (Who support Ron Paul) that hail from Pakistan are refused entry based on where they are from and not what they stand for.

Great logic.

----------


## danberkeley

> I just saw this in the new Ron Paul ad.  I think I'm going to be sick.  I thought the point of the Ron Paul foreign policy was not to judge other countries.  To label a country "terrorist" is no better than saying "axis of evil"
> 
> To make matters worse - most people from most countries are not terrorists.
> 
> A perfect example would be my girlfriend who is from Iran and hates her government.  She is studying in Spain on a STUDENT VISA and it has helped her escape the oppresion of her unfree country (where she at one point was jailed).  
> 
> I still agree with Ron Paul on almost every issue but this bothers me



yea but saying that a country is a terrorist nation (first amendment) and actually invading that nation under false pretenses are two very different things

----------


## tomveil

> Right. So people like my friends (Who support Ron Paul) that hail from Pakistan are refused entry based on where they are from and not what they stand for.
> 
> Great logic.


Once again

Increased scrutiny is NOT blanket denial!

----------


## james1844

Paul's whole approach has been to address people as individuals NOT as members of groups, - he argues that his is an inherently racist standpoint - and you know what, he's right. 

BUT - to judge visa applicants based soley on their citizenship in a country where terrorism is involved violates this whole principle.  - Its inherently a RACIST policy proposal by his definition.

- Also for what its worth, I'm working on my dissertation on terrorism, and I've found that country of origin has nothing to do with commiting terrorist acts - this suggests that the policy is also ineffective and is based on something other that good science. 

This makes me thing the following: Ugh, why the $#@! did I support this guy in the first place.  Maybe he was tight with Don Black and that survivalist/KKK crew back in the 1980s.

----------


## srmpass98

> Once again
> 
> Increased scrutiny is NOT blanket denial!


I read your link and it indeed answers questions I have had on where he stands. It does not however accurately represent the ad that has just come out. If indeed the ad is a tad superfluous, then it should be retracted. 

My responses here and more to do with some of the posts here then anything else.

----------


## tomveil

> Paul's whole approach has been to address people as individuals NOT as members of groups, - he argues that his is an inherently racist standpoint - and you know what, he's right. 
> 
> BUT - to judge visa applicants based soley on their citizenship in a country where terrorism is involved violates this whole principle.  - Its inherent a RACIST policy proposal.
> 
> - Also for what its worth, I'm working on my dissertation on terrorism, and I've found that country of origin has nothing to do with commiting terrorist acts - this suggests that the policy is also ineffective and is based on something other that good science. 
> 
> Ugh, why the $#@! did I support this guy in the first place.


Because he's not issuing blanket denials based on country of origin, only an extra layer of security before they are granted?

----------


## Ernest

> Once again
> 
> Increased scrutiny is NOT blanket denial!


Common sense! Some of you folks who are so indoctrinated with "multicultualism" and "xenophobia" and the evil white man maybe need to figure out who the good guys are here.

----------


## tomveil

> I read your link and it indeed answers questions I have had on where he stands. It does not however accurately represent the ad that has just come out. If indeed the ad is a tad superfluous, then it should be retracted. 
> 
> My responses here and more to do with some of the posts here then anything else.


I totally understand that.

But there's a lot more to his position that 5 seconds in an ad.

It's like Fox News playing "We don't NEED a centralized bank!" (which he says all the time), and then trying to parlay that into "He wants to abolish money"

----------


## srmpass98

> I totally understand that.
> 
> But there's a lot more to his position that 5 seconds in an ad.
> 
> It's like Fox News playing "We don't NEED a centralized bank!" (which he says all the time), and then trying to parlay that into "He wants to abolish money"


Yes, but upon further scrutiny you'd immediately see his economic policy (which I believe is his strongest by far). However, his stance on Immigration has always been a bit inconclusive, so this new position is harmful in the sense that it leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation. If someone like me, an ardent supporter of Ron Paul, was shocked by the ad, imagine what it will do to the independents and the moderates who are vacillating between candidates.

I'm just saying that this ad is misleading if indeed Ron Paul is for more scrutiny and not blanket denial (which the ad clearly suggests).

----------


## DRV45N05

> I just saw this in the new Ron Paul ad.  I think I'm going to be sick.  I thought the point of the Ron Paul foreign policy was not to judge other countries.  To label a country "terrorist" is no better than saying "axis of evil"
> 
> To make matters worse - most people from most countries are not terrorists.
> 
> A perfect example would be my girlfriend who is from Iran and hates her government.  She is studying in Spain on a STUDENT VISA and it has helped her escape the oppresion of her unfree country (where she at one point was jailed).  
> 
> I still agree with Ron Paul on almost every issue but this bothers me


The tone of it bothers me. But the fact is that most 9-11 hijackers came into the US through student visas. If you want to address terrorism now, this is a way to do it. 

You should at least address the process.

----------


## FreedomLover

I don't know why some people are getting so hung up on this. This is a good way to stop terrorism, the hijackers on 9/11 were here on student visas.

I'm willing to gain thousands of republicans who want someone to be tough on terror by losing a few people who think it's unfair to pakistanis and saudis. Because I honestly don't care, and I think most of my fellow republicans arn't shedding tears over this either.

----------


## srmpass98

> I don't know why some people are getting so hung up on this. This is a good way to stop terrorism, the hijackers on 9/11 were here on student visas.
> 
> I'm willing to gain thousands of republicans who want someone to be tough on terror by losing a few people who think it's unfair to pakistanis and saudis. Because I honestly don't care, and I think most of my fellow republicans arn't shedding tears over this either.


Then I believe your nick here is misleading. I'm all for more scrutiny. Hell take all the measures you will, but you have to understand the difference between "barriers" and "denial of entry". What you are essentially saying is that, we allow certain students to come in, but have the right of refusal to those who hail from "terrorist" nations, despite the fact that you may come here to contribute to the economy, enhance the diversity, or escape oppression from said states.

----------


## DRV45N05

> Paul's whole approach has been to address people as individuals NOT as members of groups, - he argues that his is an inherently racist standpoint - and you know what, he's right. 
> 
> BUT - to judge visa applicants based soley on their citizenship in a country where terrorism is involved violates this whole principle.  - Its inherently a RACIST policy proposal by his definition.
> 
> - Also for what its worth, I'm working on my dissertation on terrorism, and I've found that country of origin has nothing to do with commiting terrorist acts - this suggests that the policy is also ineffective and is based on something other that good science. 
> 
> This makes me thing the following: Ugh, why the $#@! did I support this guy in the first place.  Maybe he was tight with Don Black and that survivalist/KKK crew back in the 1980s.


He might be wrong on this, but he specifically proposed doing this after 9-11. This hasn´t been something that he has been calling for a long time. Look it up: he did this as a reaction to the fact that many of the hijackers came into the country through student visas. 

He´s not saying that we should completely end immigration from those countries; he´s saying we should further scrutinize and/or get rid of the vehicle through which many terrorists have been demonstrated to come into the country. 

And you have absolutely no evidence proving that Ron Paul is a racist or white supremecist.

----------


## Cali4RonPaul

> I'm willing to gain thousands of republicans who want someone to be tough on terror by losing a few people who think it's unfair to pakistanis and saudis. Because I honestly don't care, and I think most of my fellow republicans arn't shedding tears over this either.


Haha i hear you, im with you on this +1

----------


## tomveil

> Then I believe your nick here is misleading. I'm all for more scrutiny. Hell take all the measures you will, but you have to understand the difference between "barriers" and "denial of entry". What you are essentially saying is that, we allow certain students to come in, but have the right of refusal to those who hail from "terrorist" nations, despite the fact that you may come here to contribute to the economy, enhance the diversity, or escape oppression from said states.


We do have that right.

I'm confused.

----------


## srmpass98

> We do have that right.
> 
> I'm confused.


Right now yes. It should stay this way. Perhaps introduce more stringent scrutiny, I dunno? 

Some of the comments here are simply idiotic though.

----------


## Begood

Security is needed now because a lot of people from those countries are pissed right now because of US foreign policy.

Wait after 4 years of President Paul and the list of country will be very short  

In fact, i think Cuba will be removed almost immediatly

----------


## tomveil

> Right now yes. It should stay this way. Perhaps introduce more stringent scrutiny, I dunno? 
> 
> Some of the comments here are simply idiotic though.


Well, I certainly won't disagree with you there 

I think that it makes sense for the government to make sure that ALL immigrants are who they say they are before we allow them to come into the country.  Anything else is irresponsible.

Now if this is clarified as "NO STUDENT VISAS TO TERRORIST NATIONS", then I'll change my tune and say that's probably over the line.

I mean, the ad says "Physcially secure our borders" as well, but I don't actually think that he wants to link machine gun-toting soldiers there arm in arm.

----------


## Liberty Star

I posted this at Ron Paul Forums  ⇒ Ron Paul 2008 Campaign   ⇒ News About The Official Campaign=> *Campaign Suggestion Box*   and is in the moderation que now.





> This ad should be pulled, from web site at least or redone with phrase "terrorist nations" removed.  That is a serious breach and contradiction of what Ron Paul has been saying for so long.  Ron Paul should keep on going with the message he has articulated so far on immigration but this ad's wording is a mistake. I suspect it slipped through the cracks without scrutiny.
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-iJKwskH4
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...09&postcount=1
> 
> 
> Defining who the 'terrorist nations' are will be a contradiction of main message of Ron Paul and counter productive. That is what  now fired 'axis of evil'  neocon speech writers of Bush used to do.  This ad  does more harm than good even if immigration is a hot button issue among some core Republican segments.
> ...



This is not about immigration though, this is about labeling nations as "terrorist nations". 

 That would be a step backwards going to the early days of Bush/Cheney rhetoric.  Even Bush administration has now dropped use of such counter productive phrases.  It's surprising how this phrase come to appear on a RP ad of all places.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...&postcount=105

----------


## RonPaulCult

> HR 488 IH 
> 
> 
> 108th CONGRESS
> 
> 1st Session
> 
> H. R. 488
> To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts. 
> ...


You guys are smart people - read the bill - tell me if it's blanket for all student and diversity visas.  I say yes it is unless the president gets involved.

----------


## FreedomLover

> Then I believe your nick here is misleading. I'm all for more scrutiny.


So am I. That's why I really don't care and can't understand why people here are crying over it, because by the time Ron Paul would hypothetically get in office and enact policies to get tough on terrorist-harboring nations, the legislation that comes his way would probably not include most types of visas, but instead would indeed have barriers and more scrutiny to people seeking student visas (which should have been done to prevent the events of 9/11), and probably not a blanket ban. The blurb in this ad says nothing comprehensive...but boy does it have the potential to win a LOT, A LOT of conservative voters (the bloc you would probably need to win a republican primary)

----------


## pates03

> My dad is from Syria, my mom from Lebanon. But I would support some barriers on giving student visas to nations that sponsor terrorists, or turn a blind eye to those that would harm America. This is something that directly threatens our nation and we have a right as a sovereign nation to defend ourselves, to scrutinize visitors more from other nations from certain parts of the world, etc. Since they are not American citizens they are not entitled to any special rights as far as I'm concerned, coming to this country is a privilege, and unfortunately for us middle easterners, this is something we will be forced to tolerate until we bring about reform in our own countries, without foreign involvement.


Wow could not have said it any better !!

My parents came from Italy and I was born here so I understand what your saying.

For all the Ron Paul supporters not liking this, think about the big picture. Look at the other candidates and ask yourself this question, Are they any better? Of course not, more wars, ID CARDS and spy on ALL AMERICANS..

----------


## OptionsTrader

Totally consistent stance.

One could argue about the phrase "terrorist nation", but it is a 2 second flash of a phrase in a 30 second ad, there is only so much elaboration you can get across in such a short time.

Look at Ron's record, which takes more than 2 seconds, such as:

*From 2003:*

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2003/pr030503.htm

*Paul Introduces Legislation to Restrict Student Visas*

_Washington, DC-  Congressman Ron Paul recently introduced legislation that will make it more difficult for terrorists and potential terrorists to enter the United States using student visas.  Paul’s bill will require the State department to apply close scrutiny to student and diversity visa applications submitted by individuals from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and other terror-sponsoring nations.

HR 488, the “Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003,” now sits before the House Judiciary committee.

“Most of the September 11th hijackers entered the country using student visas, which are notoriously easy to obtain,” Paul stated.  “Common sense dictates that we should not be handing out new visas to residents of countries that harbor terrorists.  Homeland Security and State department officials need to bring the student visa program under control before we allow more of our enemies into the country.  If we are serious about preventing terrorism in America, we cannot continue to simply fling open our doors to students from terror-sponsoring states.”

“The focus of the war on terror should be on terrorists, not American citizens,” Paul concluded.  “We must take control of our immigration procedures, prevent potential terrorists from entering the country, and do a better job of tracking those individuals we do allow to enter.  Student visas should not serve as an easy revolving door that allows our worst enemies to live among us.”  _ 

*From Dec 2002:*

*Paul Proposal to Strengthen Visa Rules Included in New Legislation Toughens Standards for Saudi Citizens Entering the U.S.*

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr120302.htm

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul, who first proposed restrictions on visas issued to citizens of Saudi Arabia several months ago, today applauded a new visa program included in recent homeland security legislation. Paul earlier introduced an amendment in the House International Relations committee requiring strict scrutiny of visa applications submitted by Saudi nationals, and he was pleased that a similar version of this commonsense proposal passed as part of the homeland security bill.

"We cannot continue to ignore the role of Saudi Arabia in abetting terrorism," Paul statcd. "Hopefully this new rule will draw needed attention to Saudi inaction and duplicity in the ongoing fight against global terror. First and foremost, we must take a very close look at Saudi citizens who want to enter this country, just as we hopefully look at individuals from other countries that support terrorism."

Paul sent a letter to Secretary of State Powell earlier this year, urging the State department to add Saudi Arabia to the list of countries not cooperating with our campaign against terrorism. The letter highlighted Saudi involvement in the September 11th attacks, noting that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals. The letter also stressed that Saudis make up more than half of those arrested by U.S. forces in Afghanistan; that clear evidence exists of Saudi support for al Qaeda; and that bin Laden himself is a Saudi citizen.

"I’m encouraged that the State department finally will be required to scrutinize visa applications from Saudi nationals," Paul stated. "Given recent evidence of Saudi charities funding radical Islamic terror organizations, it’s obviously time to rethink their status as an ally."

*From July 2002:*

*PAUL URGES RESTRICTIONS ON STUDENT VISAS IN HOMELAND DEFENSE BILL*

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr070202.htm

Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul wants Congress to deny student visas to individuals from countries that sponsor terrorism, and he favors similar restrictions on diversity visa programs for the same countries. The current list of terror-sponsoring states includes Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. Paul will work to incorporate these needed changes in our visa rules when Congress considers a homeland security bill this summer.

"Common sense dictates that we should not be handing out new visas to residents of countries that don’t cooperate with our State department in fighting terrorism," Paul stated. "Most of the criminals who carried out the September 11 attacks entered the country using student visas, so we hardly should continue to open our doors to students from places like Iraq. If we are serious about conducting a war on terrorism, we cannot simultaneously give aid and comfort to our enemies, including the aid and comfort of living in the United States."

Paul sits on the House International Relations committee, which has jurisdiction over new visa rules in the Homeland Security Act. Paul want to ensure that any homeland security legislation focuses on terrorists and possible terrorists themselves, rather than innocent American citizens.

"We need to draw a bright line between American citizens and noncitizen residents or visitors," Paul continued. "We don’t need to sacrifice civil liberties to strengthen our defenses against terrorism. First and foremost, we must take control of our borders and prevent potential terrorists from entering the country. We also must do a better job of keeping track of those individuals we do allow to enter. Visas should not serve as a revolving door that allows our worst enemies to live among us."

----------


## voytechs

Foreign policy is one thing, but protecting the homeland is something else. Most of the 9/11 guys came from Saudi Arabia. Peace and commerce with all, but also have a level head on your shoulders.

Until things come down around the world (after we initiate the peace), we have to be careful. I think its the right move.

----------


## tomveil

> Foreign policy is one thing, but protecting the homeland is something else. Most of the 9/11 guys came from Saudi Arabia. Peace and commerce with all, but also have a level head on your shoulders.
> 
> Until things come down around the world (after we initiate the peace), we have to be careful. I think its the right move.


Yes.

Hopefully soon, we'd be able to take these countries off the list and establish normal relations with them.  Until that happens, it's irresponsible not to acknowledge that there is a threat out there.

----------


## derekjohnson

His foreign policy is not to avoid judging other countries, it is not to interfere in their government. Denying countries known  to harbor terrorists student visa is not intervening on their soil, it is intervening on our soil, which is what Ron Paul is all about. I love the commercial and the language. This is the type of commercial that reaches ou to the mainstream voters in Iowa and the rest of the country.

----------


## constitutional

The reference to "terrorist nations" was satirical.

----------


## Ron LOL

I was surprised to click back to Grassroots Central and see all the outrage over this ad.  So, I went and looped it a few times to see if anything about it bugged me...and I remain surprised.

Although, "VISA's" was irritating.  You'd think an editor would have caught that.

The only issue this ad raises for me is individual rights vs. group rights, which I'll admit resulted in a raised eyebrow.  However, I think there are reasonable ways to approach this that are consistent with RP's philosophy.  If a nation sponsors or turns a blind eye to terrorism, then we punish _that nation_ by imposing limitations on student visas, not individual foreign students.  To me, this is no different from, say, economic sanctions.  Would you argue that we're punishing individuals for belonging to a group by imposing sanctions on a terrorist nation unreceptive to diplomacy?  You could, but I think you'd be reaching.

Actually, one other thing bugs me, that being the bit about "productive lives."  The claims about social services are generally accepted as true (I say generally because I've never closely scrutinized any numbers), but to call illegals "unproductive" just seems a bit offensive (or at the very least, inflammatory in a way that's indeed unproductive).

----------


## TheConstitutionLives

> My dad is from Syria, my mom from Lebanon. But I would support some barriers on giving student visas to nations that sponsor terrorists, or turn a blind eye to those that would harm America. This is something that directly threatens our nation and we have a right as a sovereign nation to defend ourselves, to scrutinize visitors more from other nations from certain parts of the world, etc. Since they are not American citizens they are not entitled to any special rights as far as I'm concerned, coming to this country is a privilege, and unfortunately for us middle easterners, this is something we will be forced to tolerate until we bring about reform in our own countries, without foreign involvement.


Good logical post

----------


## TheConstitutionLives

> His foreign policy is not to avoid judging other countries, it is not to interfere in their government. Denying countries known  to harbor terrorists student visa is not intervening on their soil, it is intervening on our soil, which is what Ron Paul is all about. I love the commercial and the language. This is the type of commercial that reaches ou to the mainstream voters in Iowa and the rest of the country.


Good points.

----------


## Ron LOL

One last comment, the music _cracks me up_.  Like Ron Paul is a superhero or something...

----------


## FreedomLover

> One last comment, the music _cracks me up_.  Like Ron Paul is a superhero or something...


You mean he isn't? Haha.

----------


## constitutional

> One last comment, the music _cracks me up_.  Like Ron Paul is a superhero or something...


Watch some of Ghouliani, Romney or McCain ads and you will cry.

----------


## Karsten

> The reference to "terrorist nations" was satirical.


Explain how?

----------


## Duckman

I think this is mostly a good ad.  I do think we need better border security.  I do believe there are people actively trying to get into this country to kill us.

However, like many people here, I am troubled with the idea of a blanket denial of student visas on the grounds that it unfairly punishes the innocent along with the guilty, just because of where they come from.   That offends my spirit of fairness.

I do think that we need tighter restrictions on ALL kinds of visas because of terrorism and illegal immigration concerns.  However, I think that needs to come in the form of closer scrutiny of applicants and the foreign nationals once they are here, not in the form of "sorry, you're from country X, so you can't study here."

Plus, I think issuing a blanket denial against particular nations ignores the fact that we could just as easily get terrorists coming in on visas from European nations which have large amounts of immigrants from those same "terrorist nations" some here seek to deny visas to.

I think a much better policy would be much better scrutiny of student visas ACROSS THE BOARD rather than automatic blanket denials of student visas from particular nations.

----------


## constitutional

> Explain how?


For people like us, yes... it's satire. This ad is targeted at conservatives (It will gain us votes). We all need to calm down.

Ron Paul would never label a nation as "terrorist nation." He himself said terrorism is an tactic that can't be fought. Watch this video till the end.  He mentions it.

Come on people, this ad is perfect.

----------


## max

OP is correct!  "Terrorist nation".....Who is a terrorist nation?  Are the students from these so-called "terrorist nations" to be denied while students from "non-terrorist nations" are ok?

I was very disappointed to hear this. Reeks of pandering for the bigoted yahoo vote. I have several arab friends and I found it offensive.

----------


## me3

*No more student nations from terrorist visas!*

----------


## literatim

> OP is correct!  "Terrorist nation".....Who is a terrorist nation?  Are the students from these so-called "terrorist nations" to be denied while students from "non-terrorist nations" are ok?
> 
> I was very disappointed to hear this. Reeks of pandering for the bigoted yahoo vote. I have several arab friends and I found it offensive.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_S...s_of_Terrorism

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

He should have left out that last line, oh well.

----------


## Duckman

> Ron Paul would never label a nation as "terrorist nation." He himself said terrorism is an tactic that can't be fought. Watch this video till the end.  He mentions it.


Perhaps, but Paul did apparently introduce legislation in 2003 to blanket deny student visas from Saudi Arabia.  So I don't buy the argument that this statement won't represent real policy.

----------


## constitutional

> OP is correct!  "Terrorist nation".....Who is a terrorist nation?  Are the students from these so-called "terrorist nations" to be denied while students from "non-terrorist nations" are ok?
> 
> I was very disappointed to hear this. Reeks of pandering for the bigoted yahoo vote. I have several arab friends and I found it offensive.


It's a tactic to gain votes of conservatives! We are not trying to get votes of democrats here. We are hitting the republican base here. Come on, it's targeted at a specific group of people.

On a side note: I will no longer reply to any threads relating to this. It's pointless.

----------


## dircha

The ad groups people based on their actions: coming into our country illegally.

The original poster groups people based on their race.

Congressman Paul has said again and again, and I agree, that it is the latter which is inherently racist.

Grouping people based on race, regardless of your motives, is the root and driving force of racism.

----------


## Ernest

> Right. So people like my friends (Who support Ron Paul) that hail from Pakistan are refused entry based on where they are from and not what they stand for.
> 
> Great logic.


You friends may be ok but if you are suggesting we shouldn't apply extra scrutiny to people from countries like Pakistan you're on the wrong bus.

----------


## RP-Republican

I didn't like that line either but it will probably play well with small conservative base.

----------


## FreedomLover

> It's a tactic to gain votes of conservatives! We are not trying to get votes of democrats here. We are hitting the republican base here. Come on, it's targeted at a specific group of people.
> 
> On a side note: I will no longer reply to any threads relating to this. It's pointless.


Yes, get into the mind of a typical conservative voter who's not going to dwell on politically correct qualifiers.

Ad: "No...terrorist nations" 

Voter: "O, I thought that ron paul guy was a cut and runner and terrorist-appeaser but it looks like he is actually serious about stopping terrorism, maybe i'll give him another look"

----------


## Ron LOL

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_S...s_of_Terrorism


Just to actually get this information in to the thread, "terrorist nations" includes A GRAND TOTAL OF FIVE NATIONS.

Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.

And Dr. Paul has commented that he thinks it's time to open up relations with Cuba.

So _seriously_, of those four countries left on the list...does anybody think denying student visas is really an unreasonable policy?

----------


## tomveil

> I think this is mostly a good ad.  I do think we need better border security.  I do believe there are people actively trying to get into this country to kill us.
> 
> However, like many people here, I am troubled with the idea of a blanket denial of student visas on the grounds that it unfairly punishes the innocent along with the guilty, just because of where they come from.   That offends my spirit of fairness.
> 
> I do think that we need tighter restrictions on ALL kinds of visas because of terrorism and illegal immigration concerns.  However, I think that needs to come in the form of closer scrutiny of applicants and the foreign nationals once they are here, not in the form of "sorry, you're from country X, so you can't study here."
> 
> Plus, I think issuing a blanket denial against particular nations ignores the fact that we could just as easily get terrorists coming in on visas from European nations which have large amounts of immigrants from those same "terrorist nations" some here seek to deny visas to.
> 
> I think a much better policy would be much better scrutiny of student visas ACROSS THE BOARD rather than automatic blanket denials of student visas from particular nations.


*nods*

I agree.  Which is good, since that's what Paul is advocating.

----------


## Duckman

> You friends may be ok but if you are suggesting we shouldn't apply extra scrutiny to people from countries like Pakistan you're on the wrong bus.


Extra scrutiny is prefectly OK and necessary.  Blanket denials are the root of complaints here.

----------


## tomveil

> Extra scrutiny is prefectly OK and necessary.  Blanket denials are the root of complaints here.


Which, in my opinion after reading the bills, is unfounded.

But hey, herding cats, right?

----------


## Duckman

> I agree.  Which is good, since that's what Paul is advocating.


I'm not convinced that is true.  That's not what the ad says, nor does it match what Paul's 2003 bill to deny student visas to students from Saudi Arabia would have done.

----------


## Ernest

> Extra scrutiny is prefectly OK and necessary.  Blanket denials are the root of complaints here.



Do you know what Ron Paul's position is? I still don't understand the problem?

----------


## tomveil

> I'm not convinced that is true.  That's not what the ad says, nor does it match what Paul's 2003 bill to deny student visas to students from Saudi Arabia would have done.


Please post the text of that bill.

Then read it.

Then read it again.

And then one more time.

Then tell me that it's a blanket denial of all applicants.

I agree, that's what the ad says.  The ad also says "Physcially secure our borders", but I don't think we're going to send down the national guard to link arm-in-arm.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> The ad groups people based on their actions: coming into our country illegally.
> 
> The original poster groups people based on their race.
> 
> Congressman Paul has said again and again, and I agree, that it is the latter which is inherently racist.
> 
> Grouping people based on race, regardless of your motives, is the root and driving force of racism.


What are you talking about?  I said nothing about race.  Iranians are aryans anyway.  

And anybody that comes into this country with a student visa is doing so LEGALLY!

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Please post the text of that bill.
> 
> Then read it.
> 
> Then read it again.
> 
> And then one more time.
> 
> Then tell me that it's a blanket denial of all applicants.
> ...


HR 488 IH 


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 488
To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts. 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 29, 2003
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Mr. DUNCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts. 


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF STUDENT AND DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISAS TO ALIENS WHO ARE NATIONALS OF SAUDI ARABIA OR COUNTRIES THAT SUPPORT TERRORISM OR ARE NOT COOPERATING FULLY WITH UNITED STATES ANTITERRORISM EFFORTS.

(a) LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF STUDENT VISAS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, *an alien may not be granted a visa for study in the United States under subparagraphs (F), (J), or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act without review by the President* if the alien is a national of Saudi Arabia, a country designated under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a country that supports acts of international terrorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.

(d) LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISAS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien may not be granted an immigrant visa under section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)) relating to diversity immigrants without review by the President if the alien is a national of Saudi Arabia, a country designated under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a country that supports acts of international terrorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not fully cooperating with United States antiterrorism efforts.
END




*Seems blanket to me*

----------


## RonPaulVolunteer

> troll
> 
> Paul tries to look strong on national defense and you criticize.
> 
> grow up


Troll? He has more posts than you. The door is to the left. bye bye...

----------


## Think12345

I have no problem with the meaning of the ad.
I have a serious problem with the term "terrorist nations". I assume that is just a short way of saying "countries from which many terrorists have arrived to the US", but still...

----------


## literatim

> I have no problem with the meaning of the ad.
> I have a serious problem with the term "terrorist nations". I assume that is just a short way of saying "countries from which many terrorists have arrived to the US", but still...


No, it is short for "nations of who fund and harbor terrorist".

----------


## james1844

Yes, the policy is racist in its effect.  - It targets arabs, rather than relying on intelligence or law enforcement information to screen visa applicants.

----------


## tomveil

OK, now I'll highlight something.

HR 488 IH 


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 488
To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts. 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 29, 2003
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Mr. DUNCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts. 


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF STUDENT AND DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISAS TO ALIENS WHO ARE NATIONALS OF SAUDI ARABIA OR COUNTRIES THAT SUPPORT TERRORISM OR ARE NOT COOPERATING FULLY WITH UNITED STATES ANTITERRORISM EFFORTS.

(a) LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF STUDENT VISAS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien may not be granted a visa for study in the United States under subparagraphs (F), (J), or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act *without review by the President* if the alien is a national of Saudi Arabia, a country designated under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a country that supports acts of international terrorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.

(d) LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISAS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien may not be granted an immigrant visa under section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)) relating to diversity immigrants *without review by the President* if the alien is a national of Saudi Arabia, a country designated under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a country that supports acts of international terrorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not fully cooperating with United States antiterrorism efforts.
END




> *Seems blanket to me*


And yet, see how it's not?

----------


## Stealth4

having a "diversity immigrant" visa is by itself racist because it specifies certain races.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Troll? He has more posts than you. The door is to the left. bye bye...


I just wanted to say thank you to all of you that defended me as not being a troll.

----------


## dircha

> Yes, the policy is racist in its effect.  - It targets arabs, rather than relying on intelligence or law enforcement information to screen visa applicants.


None of us have any idea which nations the creators of the ad classify as Terrorist Nations.

You are jumping to conclusions based on your own pre-conceived racial groupings, and doing so is not only inherently racist, it is one of the driving forces behind the perpetuation of racism in our society.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> OK, now I'll highlight something.
> 
> HR 488 IH 
> 
> 
> 108th CONGRESS
> 
> 1st Session
> 
> ...


So what - you need like a presidential pardon to get a student visa?  And what are the odds of that happening?

----------


## webaform

On the other hand, you could vote for another candidate and get a free military flight to kill your GF's family in the next 4 years.  Not hyperbole.

----------


## dircha

There are two terms at issue in the ad: Illegal Immigrants and Terrorist Nations. With so many threads, I believe I posted in the wrong one previously.

Here we are specifically talking about the use of the term Terrorist Nations.

Sorry Mr. RonPaulCult, I was thinking of the Original Poster in a different thread.

----------


## OptionsTrader

> I just wanted to say thank you to all of you that defended me as not being a troll.


Personally, I don't think asking the question is trolling.  

I think the ad could have been worded to more clearly define Paul's position on the issue.

But, I think the ad is still quite consistent with his record.

They could have boiled down what's on his webpage: _"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."_

Or what he has introduced into legislation:




> Totally consistent stance.
> 
> One could argue about the phrase "terrorist nation", but it is a 2 second flash of a phrase in a 30 second ad, there is only so much elaboration you can get across in such a short time.
> 
> Look at Ron's record, which takes more than 2 seconds, such as:
> 
> *From 2003:*
> 
> http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2003/pr030503.htm
> ...

----------


## tomveil

> So what - you need like a presidential pardon to get a student visa?  And what are the odds of that happening?


Huh?

Pardon <> review

I'd imagine in policy there would be an in-depth examination of the applicant and a reccomendation made to the president.  Then, he would approve or reject the cases based on the reccomendations of the commitee, or send them back for further review.

Again, an extra layer of protection, not a blanket denial.

----------


## NeoconPaulsupporter

> OK, now I'll highlight something.
> 
> HR 488 IH 
> 
> 
> 108th CONGRESS
> 
> 1st Session
> 
> ...


Excellent.  Especially nice seeing SA targeted.

----------


## tomveil

> There are two terms at issue in the ad: Illegal Immigrants and Terrorist Nations. With so many threads, I believe I posted in the wrong one previously.
> 
> Here we are specifically talking about the use of the term Terrorist Nations.
> 
> Sorry Mr. RonPaulCult, I was thinking of the Original Poster in a different thread.


There is a list of these nations, complied by the State Department since 1979.  It's not just a phrase, it's an actual offical list.

----------


## Ruby Justice

So this is specific to Saudis..and I can agree with that..but, "terrorist nations" is a cheap shot, and frankly, quite "isolationist"

----------


## tomveil

> So this is specific to Saudis..and I can agree with that..but, "terrorist nations" is a cheap shot, and frankly, quite "isolationist"


Again, no.  Offical list maintained by the State Department since 1979.

----------


## dircha

> There is a list of these nations, complied by the State Department since 1979.  It's not just a phrase, it's an actual offical list.


I believe the State Department list you are referring to is:
State Sponsors of Terror.

Whereas the ad uses the term:
Terrorist Nations.

I'm not aware of any formal legal definition of Terrorist Nations. As such, I don't think it makes sense to jump to conclusions about which nations the campaign would include in such a list. Hopefully Congressman Paul will be prepared to answer that question when the media bring it up, however.

----------


## ggibson1

> I just saw this in the new Ron Paul ad.  I think I'm going to be sick.  I thought the point of the Ron Paul foreign policy was not to judge other countries.  To label a country "terrorist" is no better than saying "axis of evil"
> 
> To make matters worse - most people from most countries are not terrorists.
> 
> A perfect example would be my girlfriend who is from Iran and hates her government.  She is studying in Spain on a STUDENT VISA and it has helped her escape the oppresion of her unfree country (where she at one point was jailed).  
> 
> I still agree with Ron Paul on almost every issue but this bothers me


You would have to be stupid not judge anything... that sure isnt common sense...

Like Ron Paul said about steping in a pit of snakes you just might get bit... and if you invite vipers to stay with you in your own home you also might get bit... and so may your children... BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE VIPERS!?!?!?! .... Well we dont... but there is no reaon to bother taking the chance when the odds are much higher letting Saudis come here that they may be a viper than letting someone from lets say Russia come here..

----------


## tomveil

> I believe the State Department list you are referring to is:
> State Sponsors of Terror.
> 
> Whereas the ad uses the term:
> Terrorist Nations.
> 
> I'm not aware of any formal legal definition of Terrorist Nations. As such, I don't think it makes sense to jump to conclusions about which nations the campaign would include in such a list. Hopefully Congressman Paul will be prepared to answer that question when the media bring it up, however.


(a) LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF STUDENT VISAS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien may not be granted a visa for study in the United States under subparagraphs (F), (J), or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act without review by the President if the alien is a national of Saudi Arabia, a country designated under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a country that supports acts of international terrorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.

------------------------------------------------

That's what's meant by "Terrorist Nations".

Reading is fun!

----------


## Duckman

> I'd imagine in policy there would be an in-depth examination of the applicant and a reccomendation made to the president.  Then, he would approve or reject the cases based on the reccomendations of the commitee, or send them back for further review.
> 
> Again, an extra layer of protection, not a blanket denial.


Well, I am willing to give that interpretation the benefit of the doubt.  I just hope that is actually RP's intended meaning here.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> You would have to be stupid not judge anything... that sure isnt common sense...
> 
> Like Ron Paul said about steping in a pit of snakes you just might get bit... and if you invite vipers to stay with you in your own you also might get bit... and so may your children...


I'm glad it for sure won't be YOU in the oval office deciding what nation's entire population are "vipers"

----------


## tomveil

> Well, I am willing to give that interpretation the benefit of the doubt.  I just hope that is actually RP's intended meaning here.


Me too!  Because if it's not, I think it's going too far.

However, based on everything he's ever written or said on the subject, I'm fairly confident that my interpretation is correct.  If it's not, I'll be back to eat a huge slice of Crow Pie

----------


## saahmed

I was upset by that statement.

----------


## FreedomLover

> I believe the State Department list you are referring to is:
> State Sponsors of Terror.
> 
> Whereas the ad uses the term:
> Terrorist Nations.
> 
> I'm not aware of any formal legal definition of Terrorist Nations. As such, I don't think it makes sense to jump to conclusions about which nations the campaign would include in such a list. Hopefully Congressman Paul will be prepared to answer that question when the media bring it up, however.


The banner on the commercial didn't have room for "FROM COUNTRIES WHO HAVE SPONSORED TERROR"

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Huh?
> 
> Pardon <> review
> 
> I'd imagine in policy there would be an in-depth examination of the applicant and a reccomendation made to the president.  Then, he would approve or reject the cases based on the reccomendations of the commitee, or send them back for further review.
> 
> Again, an extra layer of protection, not a blanket denial.


I said LIKE a pardon - meaning I don't see the odds very high that the president is going to sign off on some young boy in Tehran that wants to study music in Southern Cali - or pretty much anybody that doesn't have HUGE connections.

----------


## Vaughn

Man my friends from Terroriststan are not going to be able to come here and study anymore!
jk, but seriously what constitutes a terrorist nation? Clearly the past Afghanistan would have qualified but i cannot think of current countries that would qualify. Maybe Iran, but do they even send students to the U.S?

----------


## tomveil

> I said LIKE a pardon - meaning I don't see the odds very high that the president is going to sign off on some young boy in Tehran that wants to study music in Southern Cali - or pretty much anybody that doesn't have HUGE connections.


With all due respect, why not?

It's nothing LIKE a pardon.  A pardon is for somebody who's been found guilty of committing a crime.  These people have not been found guilty of any crimes (which would probably be reason for rejection anyway).

----------


## RonPaulCult

> With all due respect, why not?
> 
> It's nothing LIKE a pardon.  A pardon is for somebody who's been found guilty of committing a crime.  These people have not been found guilty of any crimes (which would probably be reason for rejection anyway).


Because the president is too busy to review things like this (if this is really how it's supposed to work)

Because the president will take a political hit for signing too many of them

----------


## tomveil

> Man my friends from Terroriststan are not going to be able to come here and study anymore!
> jk, but seriously what constitutes a terrorist nation? Clearly the past Afghanistan would have qualified but i cannot think of current countries that would qualify. Maybe Iran, but do they even send students to the U.S?


-----------------------------
(a) LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF STUDENT VISAS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien may not be granted a visa for study in the United States under subparagraphs (F), (J), or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act without review by the President if the alien is a national of Saudi Arabia, a country designated under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a country that supports acts of international terrorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.
----------------------------

That's what defines it.  Interesting that RP ADDS Saudi Arabia to that list specifically, which (to me) means that they wouldn't be covered by the other provisions.

----------


## dircha

> (a) LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF STUDENT VISAS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien may not be granted a visa for study in the United States under subparagraphs (F), (J), or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act without review by the President if the alien is a national of Saudi Arabia, a country designated under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a country that supports acts of international terrorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------
> 
> That's what's meant by "Terrorist Nations".
> 
> Reading is fun!


No, then you did not read it. The cited statute contains no legal definition of the term Terrorist Nation. Indeed, it does not even use the term. Again, Terrorist Nation is not a legal term defined by any US statute or by any federal agency.

It is unwarranted to jump to any conclusions about which nations the campaign categorizes as Terrorist Nations.

Please wait until the campaign or Congressman Paul himself issue clarification as to their precise intention in introducing this new term.

----------


## tomveil

> Because the president is too busy to review things like this (if this is really how it's supposed to work)
> 
> Because the president will take a political hit for signing too many of them


Well, Ron Paul would probably have more time on his hands than Bush, and he manages to take a lot of vacations.  

Why would the president take a political hit for approving them?  The only people that he would be reviewing would be people who WOULD BE APPROVED ANYWAY!

So either 

A) Nothing changes

B) The president signs off and we have an extra layer of security

----------


## Liberty Star

> The phrase "terrorist nations' is a mistake.  But let's not  rush  and give campaign time to look into this.  It looks like an oversight to me going  by what Ron Paul has been articulating so far.
> 
> 
> I posted this at Ron Paul Forums  ⇒ Ron Paul 2008 Campaign   ⇒ News About The Official Campaign=> *Campaign Suggestion Box*   and is in the moderation que now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ron Paul in his own words:

Ron Paul on the issues




> 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://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/bo...ration-reform/


I think that ad should be pulled from YT site as well as from any TV spots.  You can't make everyone happy when you have such a big tent but you shouldn't compromise on key issues either.

----------


## tomveil

> No, then you did not read it. The cited statute contains no legal definition of the term Terrorist Nation. Indeed, it does not even use the term. Again, Terrorist Nation is not a legal term defined by any US statute or by any federal agency.
> 
> It is unwarranted to jump to any conclusions about which nations the campaign categorizes as Terrorist Nations.
> 
> Please wait until the campaign or Congressman Paul himself issue clarification as to their precise intention in introducing this new term.


*sigh*

These are the criteria for such a list.

It's a damned 30 second ad.  They can't say everything.

----------


## Duckman

I think "terrorist nations" is a quick way to say "countries we think terrorists come from".  I don't think it necessarily maps directly to the State Department list,  because Saudia Arabia is not on it and I think if you ARE going to impose this policy and it doesn't cover Saudia Arabia that would be rediculous, since that's where the 9/11 hijackers used visas from.

----------


## NeoconPaulsupporter

Well, we could just bomb terrorist nations, occupy them, and then make them Democratic.  Of course bombing this could cause them to rally around their leaders.  

Or, we just might provide an incentive to moderate youth to have their own Revolution.

----------


## dircha

> *sigh*
> 
> These are the criteria for such a list.
> 
> It's a damned 30 second ad.  They can't say everything.


Those might be the criteria for such a list.

If you are going to cite statute, then you should know that there is no legal definition of the term Terrorist Nation in anything you have cited.

Yes, that might be what the campaign had in mind.

But the fact of the matter is we don't know.

----------


## literatim

> Ron Paul in his own words:
> 
> Ron Paul on the issues
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/bo...ration-reform/
> 
> 
> I think that ad should be pulled from YT site as well as from any TV spots.  You can't make everyone happy when you have such a big tent but you shouldn't compromise on key issues either.


Student visas /= immigration.

----------


## tomveil

> Those might be the criteria for such a list.
> 
> If you are going to cite statute, then you should know that there is no legal definition of the term Terrorist Nation in anything you have cited.
> 
> Yes, that might be what the campaign had in mind.
> 
> But the fact of the matter is we don't know.


Well, that's the bill that he introduced.  I think that's a pretty good place to start.

Wow I need to drink more.

----------


## NeoconPaulsupporter

> I think "terrorist nations" is a quick way to say "countries we think terrorists come from".  I don't think it necessarily maps directly to the State Department list,  because Saudia Arabia is not on it and I think if you ARE going to impose this policy and it doesn't cover Saudia Arabia that would be rediculous, since that's where the 9/11 hijackers used visas from.


Exactly.  You have to remember that Ron Paul is going to have his own ideas on who these nations are.  Saudia Arabia is a HUGE one, and it's about time we explicitly call them out.

----------


## tomveil

> I think "terrorist nations" is a quick way to say "countries we think terrorists come from".  I don't think it necessarily maps directly to the State Department list,  because Saudia Arabia is not on it and I think if you ARE going to impose this policy and it doesn't cover Saudia Arabia that would be rediculous, since that's where the 9/11 hijackers used visas from.


I think that's why the bill specifically said "Saudia Arabia OR"....  He's not going to let them off the hook, regardless of what the State Dept. list says.

----------


## dircha

That's a good point, but let's just please not jump to conclusions about what the campaign meant.

It is ridiculous that people are saying they are going to drop their support of Ron Paul over this.

----------


## luckystars

no more students from Saudi Arabia?

----------


## RonPaulCult

> That's a good point, but let's just please not jump to conclusions about what the campaign meant.
> 
> It is ridiculous that people are saying they are going to drop their support of Ron Paul over this.


I strongly disagree with it but I'm still going to support Ron Paul.  

My girlfriend that I mentioned before that is an iranian student in Spain loves Ron Paul and she would want us all to still support Ron Paul.  She knows it's the policies of her $#@! president that cause trouble for people like her and she can't blame the US when restrictions are made.  

With that said I still wish RP would rethink his position - make student visas much tougher to get - but not THIS difficult to the point where very few if any are approved.  I think our country is enriched by students being here from around the world.  

I KNOW that when somebody from a country like Iran tastes freedom their eyes are opened and they want the same for their country.  It's a way to spread democracy without dropping bombs - something I think we can all get behind.

----------


## enjoiskaterguy

> troll
> 
> Paul tries to look strong on national defense and you criticize.
> 
> grow up



troll my ass...I happen to agree.  The add was good until that statement.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

Open borders and easy-come-easy-go would be possible in a crystal world with love rainbows led by Lord of Light Kucinich.... 
but until the Prince of Peace slays Satan, I don't want America to feel obliged to school Saudis or Iranians.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Open borders and easy-come-easy-go would be possible in a crystal world with love rainbows led by Lord of Light Kucinich.... 
> but until the Prince of Peace slays Satan, I don't want America to feel obliged to school Saudis or Iranians.


I'm only going to assume you don't know any Saudis or Iranians

----------


## hasan

dont like that the ad generalizes all students from so called terrorist nations to be threats. this wasnt even an issue that needed to be addressed. why create controversy by bringing up something that wasnt even questioned in the first place?

----------


## Spirit of '76

> I'm only going to assume you don't know any Saudis or Iranians


I have Persian and Saudi friends, and I think Dr. Paul's bill was sound in its reasoning and intent (though the brief wording the in the 30-second ad can obviously be misconstrued).

The bill was not a blanket denial of visas based on nationality.  It provides for a closer scrutiny of student visa applications from certain countries whose governments are known to sponsor terrorist activity against the US.

It provides a peaceful, diplomatic, and non-interventionist incentive for the citizens of those countries to pressure their governments to mend their relationships with the US and reject the influence of terrorist groups.

----------


## 0zzy

> dont like that the ad generalizes all students from so called terrorist nations to be threats. this wasnt even an issue that needed to be addressed. why create controversy by bringing up something that wasnt even questioned in the first place?


To get the Iowa vote?

----------


## Menthol Patch

I say bring all our troops home, promise to never attack other nations preemptively, and be very careful about who we give student visas to.

----------


## FreedomLover

> I say bring all our troops home, promise to never attack other nations preemptively, and be very careful about who we give student visas to.


That's the basic message, but some people really like to complain about things that are completely and utterly unimportant.

----------


## hasan

targeting students is not in iowa's interests at all. I havent seen a single candidate try and make an issue out of foreign students coming here and getting an education. I presonally believe the person who made the ad does not understand Ron Paul's stances very well.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> I'm only going to assume you don't know any Saudis or Iranians


I have an Iranian roommate. Nice guy.
Yes, it's unfair to people like him, but we shouldn't become a doormat to serve other countries that are hostile to us and would abuse our generosity.

----------


## OptionsTrader

> targeting students is not in iowa's interests at all. I havent seen a single candidate try and make an issue out of foreign students coming here and getting an education. I presonally believe the person who made the ad does not understand Ron Paul's stances very well.


Sorry, but you must not be informed about Ron Paul's stance on limiting certain student visas for nonimmigrants.

Read the legislation he has introduced and what's on his website.

I think the ad could have been worded to more clearly define Paul's position on the issue.

But, I think the ad is still quite consistent with his record.

They could have boiled down what's on his webpage: _"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."_

The ad is totally consistent with his stance on visas for nonimmigrants.

One could argue about the phrase "terrorist nation", but it is a 2 second flash of a phrase in a 30 second ad, there is only so much elaboration you can get across in such a short time.

Look at Ron's record, which takes more than 2 seconds, such as:

What Paul has introduced into legislation:

*From 2003:*

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2003/pr030503.htm

*Paul Introduces Legislation to Restrict Student Visas*

_Washington, DC-  Congressman Ron Paul recently introduced legislation that will make it more difficult for terrorists and potential terrorists to enter the United States using student visas.  Paul’s bill will require the State department to apply close scrutiny to student and diversity visa applications submitted by individuals from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and other terror-sponsoring nations.

HR 488, the “Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003,” now sits before the House Judiciary committee.

“Most of the September 11th hijackers entered the country using student visas, which are notoriously easy to obtain,” Paul stated.  “Common sense dictates that we should not be handing out new visas to residents of countries that harbor terrorists.  Homeland Security and State department officials need to bring the student visa program under control before we allow more of our enemies into the country.  If we are serious about preventing terrorism in America, we cannot continue to simply fling open our doors to students from terror-sponsoring states.”

“The focus of the war on terror should be on terrorists, not American citizens,” Paul concluded.  “We must take control of our immigration procedures, prevent potential terrorists from entering the country, and do a better job of tracking those individuals we do allow to enter.  Student visas should not serve as an easy revolving door that allows our worst enemies to live among us.”  _ 

*From Dec 2002:*

*Paul Proposal to Strengthen Visa Rules Included in New Legislation Toughens Standards for Saudi Citizens Entering the U.S.*

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr120302.htm

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul, who first proposed restrictions on visas issued to citizens of Saudi Arabia several months ago, today applauded a new visa program included in recent homeland security legislation. Paul earlier introduced an amendment in the House International Relations committee requiring strict scrutiny of visa applications submitted by Saudi nationals, and he was pleased that a similar version of this commonsense proposal passed as part of the homeland security bill.

"We cannot continue to ignore the role of Saudi Arabia in abetting terrorism," Paul statcd. "Hopefully this new rule will draw needed attention to Saudi inaction and duplicity in the ongoing fight against global terror. First and foremost, we must take a very close look at Saudi citizens who want to enter this country, just as we hopefully look at individuals from other countries that support terrorism."

Paul sent a letter to Secretary of State Powell earlier this year, urging the State department to add Saudi Arabia to the list of countries not cooperating with our campaign against terrorism. The letter highlighted Saudi involvement in the September 11th attacks, noting that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals. The letter also stressed that Saudis make up more than half of those arrested by U.S. forces in Afghanistan; that clear evidence exists of Saudi support for al Qaeda; and that bin Laden himself is a Saudi citizen.

"I’m encouraged that the State department finally will be required to scrutinize visa applications from Saudi nationals," Paul stated. "Given recent evidence of Saudi charities funding radical Islamic terror organizations, it’s obviously time to rethink their status as an ally."

*From July 2002:*

*PAUL URGES RESTRICTIONS ON STUDENT VISAS IN HOMELAND DEFENSE BILL*

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr070202.htm

Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul wants Congress to deny student visas to individuals from countries that sponsor terrorism, and he favors similar restrictions on diversity visa programs for the same countries. The current list of terror-sponsoring states includes Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. Paul will work to incorporate these needed changes in our visa rules when Congress considers a homeland security bill this summer.

"Common sense dictates that we should not be handing out new visas to residents of countries that don’t cooperate with our State department in fighting terrorism," Paul stated. "Most of the criminals who carried out the September 11 attacks entered the country using student visas, so we hardly should continue to open our doors to students from places like Iraq. If we are serious about conducting a war on terrorism, we cannot simultaneously give aid and comfort to our enemies, including the aid and comfort of living in the United States."

Paul sits on the House International Relations committee, which has jurisdiction over new visa rules in the Homeland Security Act. Paul want to ensure that any homeland security legislation focuses on terrorists and possible terrorists themselves, rather than innocent American citizens.

"We need to draw a bright line between American citizens and noncitizen residents or visitors," Paul continued. "We don’t need to sacrifice civil liberties to strengthen our defenses against terrorism. First and foremost, we must take control of our borders and prevent potential terrorists from entering the country. We also must do a better job of keeping track of those individuals we do allow to enter. Visas should not serve as a revolving door that allows our worst enemies to live among us."

----------


## Question_Authority

> troll
> 
> Paul tries to look strong on national defense and you criticize.
> 
> grow up


What a stupid thing to say. So anytime someone disagrees with a Ron Paul policy, they are a troll? Sounds like Bush mentality to me. Sheesh.

----------


## tsetsefly

> targeting students is not in iowa's interests at all. I havent seen a single candidate try and make an issue out of foreign students coming here and getting an education. I presonally believe the person who made the ad does not understand Ron Paul's stances very well.


listen, what matters is hawkish republicans in Iowa will hear terrorist nations, its a bit of pandering but ill take some pandering if that will bring a ron paul presidency...

----------


## Liberty Star

Tancredo was against visas for students from 'terrorist nations' more so than this ad's tone suggests RP is, where did he end up?

Ron Paul campaign is making a blunder here imo, this could effect their fund raising also going forward.

----------


## hasan

im all for deportation of students staying illegally and that is what the ad should have said. it should not have generalized all students from a so called terrorist country and not given them entry. the US should scrutinize all students in order to prevent terrorist attacks and i am all for that but they shouldn't deny entry simply based on their nationality as the ad implies. i am pretty sure Ron Paul doesn't advocate that. I wont even mention what word came to my mind when i thought of discrimination due to nationality because I know Ron Paul doesn't advocate it.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> If he is a troll then he is pretty dedicated, 500 posts?


I have more than ten times that number and *let me be clear: that ad sickens me--and to stoop to collectivist arguments undermines everything we stand for with this campaign.*

----------


## NeoconPaulsupporter

There is no right for any foreign student to attend University in the US.  The US, on the otherhand reserves the right to secure it's borders.  Of course we could go overthrow the government's of terrorist nations.  We could arrest and kill the radical clerics until not one exists.  Then we wouldn't have to worry about student visas so much.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I just saw this in the new Ron Paul ad.  I think I'm going to be sick.  I thought the point of the Ron Paul foreign policy was not to judge other countries.  To label a country "terrorist" is no better than saying "axis of evil"
> 
> To make matters worse - most people from most countries are not terrorists.
> 
> A perfect example would be my girlfriend who is from Iran and hates her government.  She is studying in Spain on a STUDENT VISA and it has helped her escape the oppresion of her unfree country (where she at one point was jailed).  
> 
> I still agree with Ron Paul on almost every issue but this bothers me


Many of the 9/11 terrorists were CIA dupes who came from Saudi Arabia on fast track student visas.

Cia Visas For Patsies - 9/11 Review
www.911review.org/Wiki/CiaVisasForPatsies.shtml

"Questions:  Three hijackers obtained visas under an accelerated approval program, called Visa Express at travel agencies in Saudi Arabia. Visa Express had only been in ... "

www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

This is Ron Paul's clever way of addressing 9/11 Truth without being blasted as a conspiracy theorist.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> There is no right for any foreign student to attend University in the US.  The US, on the otherhand reserves the right to secure it's borders.  Of course we could go overthrow the government's of terrorist nations.  We could arrest and kill the radical clerics until not one exists.  Then we wouldn't have to worry about student visas so much.


You didn't understand my post: to use collectivist approaches penalizing students for their nationality through no fault of their own rather than on an individualist approach (you, personally, are suspected of being a terrorist) offends everything Dr. Paul fights for in Congress and in this campaign.  Couldn't there be trouble-makers from "good" countries?  And everyone knows how much politics is played with which countries go on, stay or are kept off the terrorist country list.  This is not a position based on reason grounded in our philosophical traditions.  I suppose by some interpretations, had this been in place during the Nazi era, we should have refused visas to those fleeing the terror such as Hayek and Mises and other heros of Dr. Paul!

----------


## james1844

> I have more than ten times that number and *let me be clear: that ad sickens me--and to stoop to collectivist arguments undermines everything we stand for with this campaign.*


Bradley,

Whats your take on the add then?  Who put it out?  Why did Ron approve it?

----------


## Baseline

> I have more than ten times that number and *let me be clear: that ad sickens me--and to stoop to collectivist arguments undermines everything we stand for with this campaign.*


Agreed. 

A lot of people that donated are very angry with HQ right now about this. 

HQ is turning into a joke.

----------


## hawks4ronpaul

I would expect both Americans and *especially* foreigners to welcome Paul's visa/border policy as a sane alternative to global war (see http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/20...following.html ).

Thank you.
http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

----------


## tonyTheBest

What the hell is going on?
That ads is fine. I like it.
The ads proves that Ron Paul really want to protect America. Nothing more, nothing less.

----------


## derekjohnson

> Agreed. 
> 
> A lot of people that donated are very angry with HQ right now about this. 
> 
> HQ is turning into a joke.


The people that are turning into a joke are the people that thinks Ron Paul should changes his views on a whim any time this message board disagrees with him. The great thing about Ron Paul is his steadfast positions. He has had this stance on immigration and visas for years. I am sorry that many of you were too lazy to research this before supporting him, but if this is the make or break issue for you, maybe you should go look to one of the democrats to support, they are the one that could care less about our borders.

----------


## FreedomLover

> Bradley,
> 
> Whats your take on the add then?  Who put it out?  Why did Ron approve it?


Because he's trying to win the republican nomination?

Is it wrong to accept that some nations deserve to be judged for harboring terrorist or supporting terrorist groups? Is it wrong to put more restrictions on visas coming from places like saudi arabia when we've been attacked by people carrying visas from places like...saudi arabia?

I think it's fine if you want the language changed to "terror harboring nations who's governments are more inclined to support terror" but it probably won't fit very neatly in a 30 second ad aimed at iowa republicans....and it's ludicrous that people are so outraged over such an arbitrary line.

----------


## NeoconPaulsupporter

> You didn't understand my post: to use collectivist approaches penalizing students for their nationality through no fault of their own rather than on an individualist approach (you, personally, are suspected of being a terrorist) offends everything Dr. Paul fights for in Congress and in this campaign.  Couldn't there be trouble-makers from "good" countries?  And everyone knows how much politics is played with which countries go on, stay or are kept off the terrorist country list.  This is not a position based on reason grounded in our philosophical traditions.  I suppose by some interpretations, had this been in place during the Nazi era, we should have refused visas to those fleeing the terror such as Hayek and Mises and other heros of Dr. Paul!


We could drop bombs on terrorist nations.  Do you prefer that form of collective punishment?  Bombs certainely don't discriminate.  Dr. Paul had better restrict access from these nations.  The next time a major terror attack is succesful, the people will be screaming for blood.  We shouldn't police other nations, but we damn sure have the right to police our borders.  And, if that offends a Saudi student he is welcome to pick up a rifle and dismantle the terror infrastructure in his country.  In short, we won't police you, but you're going to have to police yourselves.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Bradley,
> 
> Whats your take on the add then?  Who put it out?  Why did Ron approve it?


James, 

I'm at a total loss.  Here is the man I knew:
http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml

The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES

Rights belong to individuals, not groups.Property should be owned by people, not government.All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.

----------


## nc4rp

I imagine this is targeted, theres going to be alot of voters that like this. its not like theres alot of issues we can say that about. it could be seen as a stretegic gain, although Paul is basing it on some principle id think. You KNOW Ron, and i bet he has a better alternative

----------


## NeoconPaulsupporter

> James, 
> 
> I'm at a total loss.  Here is the man I knew:
> http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml
> 
> The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES
> 
> Rights belong to individuals, not groups.Property should be owned by people, not government.All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.


There is no right to enter the US on a student visa.

----------


## james1844

> James, 
> 
> I'm at a total loss.  Here is the man I knew:
> http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml
> 
> [/LIST]


Yeah, I don't get it either.  I thought I understood the whole individualist philosophy, but that ad comes way out of right field.  I wonder whats going on.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> James, 
> 
> I'm at a total loss.  Here is the man I knew:
> http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml
> 
> The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES
> 
> Rights belong to individuals, not groups.Property should be owned by people, not government.All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.



Once our enemies get rich by befriending us, then a more open border system can  be discussed. 
You want the CIA and/or FBI to investigate every application on an individual basis? That would cost billions, and is absurd.

----------


## transistor

it doesn't really seem that unreasonable to me

----------


## Bradley in DC

> We could drop bombs on terrorist nations.  Do you prefer that form of collective punishment?  Bombs certainely don't discriminate.  Dr. Paul had better restrict access from these nations.  The next time a major terror attack is succesful, the people will be screaming for blood.  We shouldn't police other nations, but we damn sure have the right to police our borders.  And, if that offends a Saudi student he is welcome to pick up a rifle and dismantle the terror infrastructure in his country.  In short, we won't police you, but you're going to have to police yourselves.


Your name serves you well and explains your lack of logic and reason and unfamiliarity with our beliefs.  

Really?  The best you can do is create a false dichotomy of indiscriminate bombing or blanket visa restrictions.  Not worth a response.

----------


## FreedomLover

> Yeah, I don't get it either.  I thought I understood the whole individualist philosophy, but that ad comes way out of right field.  I wonder whats going on.


Sheesh. This AD...Going to Iowa...Iowa voters...very conservative....illegal immigration bad....tough on terror good...

It's not hard. Don't get hung up on the semantics of a 30 second ad.

----------


## Baseline

It doesn't quite make sense to have him at one minute saying things like we should talk to nations and trade with nations and befriend people, then the next minute spew that "terrorist nations" label. 

That is not the Ron Paul I was supporting. That ad sounds like something out of Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard.

I still believe Ron Paul is a hundred times better than any other candidate, but this is Kerry-level flip-flopping.

----------


## ExpatinArgentina

> troll
> 
> Paul tries to look strong on national defense and you criticize.
> 
> grow up


Not cool!

----------


## james1844

yeah, I'm very concerned with the implications of this ad.  I also think its flip-flopping.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> There is no right to enter the US on a student visa.


There is no right of the government to interfere with voluntary associations without individual reasons.

----------


## FreedomLover

> Your name serves you well and explains your lack of logic and reason and unfamiliarity with out beliefs.


"our beliefs" you mean?

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr070202.htm




> Common sense dictates that we should not be handing out new visas to residents of countries that dont cooperate with our State department in fighting terrorism

----------


## tonyTheBest

I think we can be pragmatic a little bit guys. The AD goes to iowa. We need some good number coming out of Iowa on Jan 3rd.

----------


## 0zzy

Stop it! 

Stop threatening not to donate!
Stop threatening not to vote!

This is our *ONLY* chance to get a good man in office!

And you want to fight over minescule things! 
If you don't like his policies, fine, address them - when he is president!

Otherwise, student visas from "terrorist" nations will be the *least* of your worries.

*
SUPPORT.
DONATE.
VOTE.
*

----------


## FreedomLover

> yeah, I'm very concerned with the implications of this ad.  I also think its flip-flopping.


How did you come up with that? This has been his view for many years.

Also, I think the implications of this ad are great for us...maybe more republicans will start taking us seriously now.

----------


## hawks4ronpaul

> Yeah, I don't get it either.  I thought I understood the whole individualist philosophy, but that ad comes way out of right field.  I wonder whats going on.


Hello.  How is it different from Paul's constant reiteration that Congress can declare war on a nation (or do we need individual declarations for each soldier in the Wehrmacht)?

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

----------


## ronpaulfan

How much $$$ would it take to get some people at headquarters to sabotage the campaign?

My guess is many would do it for 15-40K (which is pocket change to globalists)

Please keep that in mind, especially in the days immediately before any state primary.

----------


## Liberty Star

> We could drop bombs on terrorist nations.  Do you prefer that form of collective punishment?  Bombs certainely don't discriminate.  Dr. Paul had better restrict access from these nations.  The next time a major terror attack is succesful, the people will be screaming for blood.  We shouldn't police other nations, but we damn sure have the right to police our borders.  And, if that offends a Saudi student he is welcome to pick up a rifle and dismantle the terror infrastructure in his country.  In short, we won't police you, but you're going to have to police yourselves.


Would you want to bomb Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria or any other country labeled as terrorist by someone?

Do you even know what  Ron Paul says about neconservatives? LOL



What %age of voters you think will vote for a candidate who labels other countries as 'evil', 'axis of evil' or 'terrorist nations'?  Not many at all in 08.   
This is a nuance in bigger scheme of things but it is pretty important seen in conjunction with our recent war and foreign policies.

Tancredo was against visas for students from 'terrorist nations' more so than this ad's tone suggests RP is, where did he end up?

Ron Paul campaign is making a blunder here imo.

----------


## FreedomLover

> I think we can be pragmatic a little bit guys. The AD goes to iowa. We need some good number coming out of Iowa on Jan 3rd.


"We can't be pragmatic! No individual in this world can have the freedom of getting an easily-attainable visa and coming to this country be threatened! Sure, doing such would have prevented 9/11, and sure that has been Paul's view since before the campaign, but still 'terrorist nations' sounds icky! Im voting for obama now!"

----------


## Bradley in DC

> You want the CIA and/or FBI to investigate every application on an individual basis? That would cost billions, and is absurd.


You are arguing that we should adopt reasonable approaches to granting visas and performing background checks.  On that we agree.  And yes, we grant visas to individuals and perform background checks on individuals--that is how the real world works.  To stoop to mindless collectivist approaches makes no sense--by your logic.

----------


## FreedomLover

> Hello.  How is it different from Paul's constant reiteration that Congress can declare war on a nation (or do we need individual declarations for each soldier in the Wehrmacht)?
> 
> http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/


Some people are starting to figure out that Ron Paul ain't no kookcinich when it comes to leaving our doors unlocked and wideopen for terrorists. Ron Paul is a conservative republican, but he still believes that we can have freedom...and security by using common sense! By coming down hard on visas coming from sketchy countries (the way terrorists like the ones on 9/11 used) then we can maintain as much freedom for all americans as possible, while keeping us safe.

----------


## james1844

Look, the whole point is that Paul has consistently argued against collectivism - e.g. treating people as groups, instead of individuals.  He argues its at the core of what is wrong with much of "liberal government".  

This makes good sense.  

But, the advertisement that says that visa applications from 'terrorist nations' are going to be denies essentially violates this philosophy, it makes assertions about visa applicants based on group membership - rather than on individual involvement in terrorist activity as determined by a fair and impartial background test. 

This is a contradition from his earlier positions.  

Also, I think its a bit racist and certainly its not the Paul that I signed on to support.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Because he's trying to win the republican nomination?


Dr. Paul's appeal, in part, is his steadfast adherence to principle and not pandering to the the whims of the political prejudices of the day.

----------


## NeoconPaulsupporter

> Would you want to bomb Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria or any other country labeled as terrorist by someone?
> 
> Do you even know what  Ron Paul says about neconservatives? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> What %age of voters you think will vote for a candidate who labels other countries as 'evil', 'axis of evil' or 'terrorist nations'?  Not many at all in 08.   
> This is a nuance in bigger scheme of things but it is pretty important seen in conjunction with our recent war and foreign policies.
> 
> ...


Are you people dense?  I'm not ADVOCATING dropping bombs.  How many god damn times do I have say that to you people?  I am saying you had best takes measures to limit which nations people can enter the US from.  Restricting access from terrorist sponsering and harboring nations is extremely reasonable.  We had damn sure do what we can to keep terrorists from entering this nation and pulling off another 9/11.  Otherwise, the populace will turn around and elect war candidates the next time around.  This is called reality.  Not anarcho-capitalist utopian fantasyland.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> I am sorry that many of you were too lazy to research this before supporting him, but if this is the make or break issue for you, maybe you should go look to one of the democrats to support, they are the one that could care less about our borders.


Perhaps you would be better served looking at the backgrounds of those you attack.  
(Since there are many new members here--welcome!, I've been a Paul supporter since 1981, voted for him in 1988, worked for him as a legislative staffer from 1997-2001, and have remained friends with Dr. Paul and Carol and other Congressional staffers.)

Freedom Under Siege
Careless disregard for liberty allows politicians to promise anything in 
order to be reelected. Inevitably this leads to a steady increase in spending, 
forcing higher taxes, more borrowing, and inflation of the money supply. 
Government by majority rule has replaced strict protection of the 
individual from government abuse...
Once the dictatorial power of a majority is accepted as legitimate, the 
days for the Republic are numbered -- which is the case unless current trends 
are reversed...
The good of "society" has replaced the notion that the individual has a 
sacred right to live unmolested by government interference...
Careless disregard for individual rights, concern for group demands, 
and concern for the good of society have led to a steady erosion of privacy...
It is inevitable that, once the concept of absolute individual rights is 
ignored, with each attempt to solve a problem, two new ones replace it...
Today the lack of understanding and respect for voluntary contracts 
has totally confused the issue that in a free society an individual can own and 
control property and run his or her business as he or she chooses.

Much of the confusion over rights comes from the accepted idea that 
"compromise" is the most noble trait of today's politician -- hardly a 
characteristic of those who signed and defended our Declaration of 
Independence.   It is hardly reassuring that giving in halfway is the most 
important political act of our twentieth-century politicians. Standing firm on 
principles is viewed as illogical rigidity and dangerous to America. This idea 
clearly ignores the fact that philosophy of compromise and acceptance of the 
philosophy of pragmatism is a rigid philosophy in itself as a compromise 
between socialism and individual rights. Although many justify 
interventionism as a compromise between socialism and laissez faire, 
interventionism is also a precise philosophy and not a compromise at all. It 
requires a sacrifice from those who give mere lip service to the Constitution 
and to the concept of  individual rights. To argue that we shouldn't give student visas to known or suspected terrorists is one thing--making that determination on an individual basis.  To shallowly excuse collectivist "group rights granted from government" thought is--or was and should be--out of place in this campaign.

----------


## tonyTheBest

So anyone has Snyder's contact? We can ask him address the issue if we are so adamant about it.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> You are arguing that we should adopt reasonable approaches to granting visas and performing background checks.  On that we agree.  And yes, we grant visas to individuals and perform background checks on individuals--that is how the real world works.  To stoop to mindless collectivist approaches makes no sense--by your logic.


It depends on how much more effort and money is involved in doing a background check on a hostile country immigrant than a friendly, where info is given more freely.

Sometimes a collectivist decision is prudent since time and money are limited, and we don't have infinite awareness to do things like God does

----------


## FreedomLover

> So anyone has Snyder's contact? We can ask him address the issue if we are so adamant about it.


There's only 6 or 7 people who are starting world war 3 over such an arbitrary issue. They are welcome to research the issue and email Snyder though, if it stops them from complaining in the grassroots forum.

----------


## hawks4ronpaul

Congress does not declare war on individual soldiers.

The State Department will have a difficult time doing background checks if the terrorist government provides false records.

Foreigners probably will prefer visa denial to being bombed or occupied by other presidents.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

----------


## FreedomLover

> Look, the whole point is that Paul has consistently argued against collectivism


Maybe we should stop using the word "Terrorists" then, since it is inherently collectivist by putting all types of individuals advocating change through violent means as "terrorists" no matter the philosophy or the method of action.

Look at the big picture people...don't get hung up on such arbitrary and ultimately meaningless phrases.

----------


## FreedomLover

Also guys, I like the debate (which is why I think this should be in general politics)

It just goes to show that we have a very diverse bunch here. But we've all come together to get Ron Paul elected, so let us not forget that.

----------


## Real_CaGeD

Hey, get over it.

Globalism or Soveriegnty?

Emplement change within nations with bombs or smart techniques?

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> Look, the whole point is that Paul has consistently argued against collectivism - e.g. treating people as groups, instead of individuals.  He argues its at the core of what is wrong with much of "liberal government".


Yeah, that how U.S. citizens should be treated, not foreign nationals. I didn't know our constitution covered them too.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Yeah, that how U.S. citizens should be treated, not foreign nationals. I didn't know our constitution covered them too.


Liberalism, by the Austrian Jewish refugee of the Nazis Ludwig von Mises (whose picture hangs prominently in the Congressional office and whose beliefs guide Dr. Paul and led him to enter politics in the first place)

For the liberal, there is no opposition between domestic policy and foreign policy, and the question so often raised and exhaustively discussed, whether considerations of foreign policy take precedence over those of domestic policy or vice versa, is, in his eyes, an idle one. For liberalism is, from the very outset, a world-embracing political concept, and the same ideas that it seeks to realize within a limited area it holds to be valid also for the larger sphere of world politics. If the liberal makes a distinction between domestic and foreign policy, he does so solely for purposes of convenience and classification, to subdivide the vast domain of political problems into major types, and not because he is of the opinion that different principles are valid for each.

The goal of the domestic policy of liberalism is the same as that of its foreign policy: peace. It aims at peaceful cooperation just as much between nations as within each nation. The starting point of liberal thought is the recognition of the value and importance of human cooperation, and the whole policy and program of liberalism is designed to serve the purpose of maintaining the existing state of mutual cooperation among the members of the human race and of extending it still further. The ultimate ideal envisioned by liberalism is the perfect cooperation of all mankind, taking place peacefully and without friction. Liberal thinking always has the whole of humanity in view and not just parts. It does not stop at limited groups; it does not end at the border of the village, of the province, of the nation, or of the continent. Its thinking is cosmopolitan and ecumenical: it takes in all men and the whole world. Liberalism is, in this sense, humanism; and the liberal, a citizen of the world, a cosmopolite.

----------


## NeoconPaulsupporter

> Congress does not declare war on individual soldiers.
> 
> The State Department will have a difficult time doing background checks if the terrorist government provides false records.
> 
> Foreigners probably will prefer visa denial to being bombed or occupied by other presidents.
> 
> http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/


Ding, Ding, Ding!  Give this man a prize!

----------


## NeoconPaulsupporter

> Liberalism, by the Austrian Jewish refugee of the Nazis Ludwig von Mises (whose picture hangs prominently in the Congressional office and whose beliefs guide Dr. Paul and led him to enter politics in the first place)
> 
> For the liberal, there is no opposition between domestic policy and foreign policy, and the question so often raised and exhaustively discussed, whether considerations of foreign policy take precedence over those of domestic policy or vice versa, is, in his eyes, an idle one. For liberalism is, from the very outset, a world-embracing political concept, and the same ideas that it seeks to realize within a limited area it holds to be valid also for the larger sphere of world politics. If the liberal makes a distinction between domestic and foreign policy, he does so solely for purposes of convenience and classification, to subdivide the vast domain of political problems into major types, and not because he is of the opinion that different principles are valid for each.
> 
> The goal of the domestic policy of liberalism is the same as that of its foreign policy: peace. It aims at peaceful cooperation just as much between nations as within each nation. The starting point of liberal thought is the recognition of the value and importance of human cooperation, and the whole policy and program of liberalism is designed to serve the purpose of maintaining the existing state of mutual cooperation among the members of the human race and of extending it still further. The ultimate ideal envisioned by liberalism is the perfect cooperation of all mankind, taking place peacefully and without friction. Liberal thinking always has the whole of humanity in view and not just parts. It does not stop at limited groups; it does not end at the border of the village, of the province, of the nation, or of the continent. Its thinking is cosmopolitan and ecumenical: it takes in all men and the whole world. Liberalism is, in this sense, humanism; and the liberal, a citizen of the world, a cosmopolite.


Dr. Paul is not going to run this country by the Austrian/Anarcho school.  He is running it via our constitution.  We have borders, and one of the few charges our federal government has is to secure the borders.  Having special restrictions against specific visas coming from states sponsors/enablers of terrorism easily falls within the bounds.

This is not the Mises States of America.  Or, an anarcho-capitalist utopian fantasyland.  This is  a constitutional republic.

----------


## rp08orbust

The strategy of trying to prevent terrorism by stopping the terrorists at our borders is unrealistic--those hell-bent on blowing themselves up _will_ find a way to get in.  If you ban student visas from countries X, Y, and Z, then the terrorists will either get in on some other kind of visa or they'll get student visas from countries A, B and C.  Before long, you've banned students from just about everywhere following this approach, with no added security benefit and possible economic costs due to the loss of foreign talent.  It's as futile as the war on drugs.

Ron Paul has already advocated the only realistic strategy for fighting terrorism:

1)  Eliminate the causes of terrorism by practicing non-interventionist foreign policy.  We all know this won't stop terrorists overnight, so

2)  Legalize armed guards on airplanes.  That armed guards on airplanes are banned by federal law is a violation of the 2nd Amendment anyway.

#2 alone would have stopped 9/11.  Why doesn't Ron Paul run ads on that in Iowa if he wants to pander (legitimately) to traditional Republicans?  There's no need for this collectivist BS about banning students from certain countries.

I'm not a troll--just very saddened by the latest ad.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> It depends on how much more effort and money is involved in doing a background check on a hostile country immigrant than a friendly, where info is given more freely.
> 
> Sometimes a collectivist decision is prudent since time and money are limited, and we don't have infinite awareness to do things like God does


So more Saudi students flying planes in our buildings is the lesson we learned from 9/11?  To paraphrase Reagan, it isn't that the neocon collectivists didn't learn anything, it's that they learned so much that isn't true.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I agree with this.  But, to me, it sounds different than what is in the ad.





> Quote:
> Common sense dictates that we should not be handing out new visas to residents of countries that dont cooperate with our State department in fighting terrorism
> 
> http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr070202.htm

----------


## Bradley in DC

> The bill seems to say that only the president himself can allow somebody a student or divirsity visa.  That's pretty much blanketed.


And I believed that Dr. Paul has never voted to increase the power of the Executive branch--good thing his own bill never came up for a vote!

----------


## FreedomLover

> The strategy of trying to prevent terrorism by stopping the terrorists at our borders is unrealistic--those hell-bent on blowing themselves up _will_ find a way to get in.


Well if that's true, then I guess there's no reason for a national defense.




> Ron Paul has already advocated the only realistic strategy for fighting terrorism:
> 
> 1)  Eliminate the causes of terrorism by practicing non-interventionist foreign policy.  We all know this won't stop terrorists overnight, so
> 
> 2)  Legalize armed guards on airplanes.  That armed guards on airplanes are banned by federal law is a violation of the 2nd Amendment anyway.


You forgot 

3) Make it more difficult for potential terrorists to get into a position of killing american citizens or attacking american's institutions and infrastructure. This should include common sense approaches like denying or otherwise putting up barriers to foreign nationals from places that have been known to harbor terrorists and who we know have used the priviledge of student visas to attack us in the past. As Well as securing our borders through more border guards and reducing incentives for illegals to come here.

----------


## FreedomLover

> So more Saudi students flying planes in our buildings is the lesson we learned from 9/11?


Terrorists come from Nation A. Nation A has a history of breeding terrorists. Nation A should be closely scrutinized in the future.

Pretty simple to me.

----------


## FreedomLover

Ooops, thanks mod for moving this thread ( I didn't even know this subforum existed)

----------


## Bradley in DC

> So _seriously_, of those four countries left on the list...does anybody think denying student visas is really an unreasonable policy?


Yes.  We shouldn't punish individuals for wanting to get the hell out of those countries.

About Dr. Paul's own mentor:
To escape Hitler-dominated Europe, Mises and his wife left Switzerland in 1940 and came to the United States. His reputation had been well established in Europe, but he was little known in this country. Therefore, he had to begin practically all over again to attract students and readers. English-language books began to appear from his penOmnipotent Government and Bureaucracy, both in 1944. And then his masterful economic treatise, Human Action, in 1949. There soon followed Planning for Freedom (1952), The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality (1952), Theory and History (1957) and The Ultimate Foundations of Economic Science (1962), all important books in economic theory
Certainly, back then, the Nazis would have been on the list, right?  You think it was right that our country returned to the German Nazis so many of the Jews who made it to our shores?  Some of us think this was one of our country's most shameful chapters--and yes, Mises was Jewish.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> So more Saudi students flying planes in our buildings is the lesson we learned from 9/11?  To paraphrase Reagan, it isn't that the neocon collectivists didn't learn anything, it's that they learned so much that isn't true.


It would be nice to judge every individual down to every positron, quark, and boson to make a perfect decision. There is only one true libertarian and we pray to him.

Personally, I don't want to pay with my tax dollars a million dollars for the screening of every risky applicant. We shouldn't bear that burden for the sake of liberty for a foreigner.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Dr. Paul is not going to run this country by the Austrian/Anarcho school.  He is running it via our constitution.  We have borders, and one of the few charges our federal government has is to secure the borders.  Having special restrictions against specific visas coming from states sponsors/enablers of terrorism easily falls within the bounds.
> 
> This is not the Mises States of America.  Or, an anarcho-capitalist utopian fantasyland.  This is  a constitutional republic.


Are you really that ignorant?

----------


## Bradley in DC

> It depends on how much more effort and money is involved in doing a background check on a hostile country immigrant than a friendly, where info is given more freely.
> 
> Sometimes a collectivist decision is prudent since time and money are limited, and we don't have infinite awareness to do things like God does


IRRATIONAL action is not justified, no.  Most highjackers were SAUDIS.  Most of the people wanting out of terrorist countries to come there are our self-selected allies in the war against terrorism.

----------


## RonPaulCult

Liberty forest?  Come on Mods I dont' even know how to get here from the main page.  Could you at least put this in HOT TOPICS?

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Terrorists come from Nation A. Nation A has a history of breeding terrorists. Nation A should be closely scrutinized in the future.
> 
> Pretty simple to me.


And yet you're justifying policies that contradict this "simplicity" since there were no North Korean, Cuban, et al, highjackers on 9/11 but mostly from our close ally--the brutal dictatorship we prop up--Saudi Arabia.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> It would be nice to judge every individual down to every positron, quark, and boson to make a perfect decision. There is only one true libertarian and we pray to him.
> 
> Personally, I don't want to pay with my tax dollars a million dollars for the screening of every risky applicant. We shouldn't bear that burden for the sake of liberty for a foreigner.


Why do the apologists presume that the burden falls on the taxpayer--another indication of collectivist thought!

----------


## Cowlesy

Us Free Thinkers, we're like the Borg!

----------


## Corydoras

These people in question want F type STUDENT visas. In other words, visas that _terminate with their degree program._ These are not people who want to immigrate. These are people who are here because they want to take the knowledge they have acquired here, graduate with their fancy American diplomas, return home, and _use that knowledge to benefit the countries they come from__._

I have seen NO evidence whatsoever that Ron Paul wants to cut down on O-1 visas from any country. Now people who qualify for O-1 visas, these are the sorts of people we DO want, because they really want to be here and _benefit this country._ A lot of them want green cards or citizenship, but they are so valuable that O visas can be renewed _indefinitely_.
http://www.hio.harvard.edu/administr...a_overview.php

----------


## LibertyInJeopardy

It is unfortunate that some people who just happen to be from a country who's leadership is judged by Dr Paul/Congress to state sponsor terrorism would be denied student Visas, but if there would be the opportunity for each individual to show that their case deserves an exemption from the blanket denial policy, then I agree with this measure until such time as the "terrorist nation" had a real government crackdown on terrorist individuals and certainly stopped sponsoring their activities.

I think special scrutiny is a necessary measure to help prevent attacks from individuals from one nation more than may be necessary for individuals from another.  They're individuals, yes, but we don't know them until we know them and therefore we must attribute the generalized ratios of caution to them that we would with anyone from the government ruling over their nation.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> hese are people who are here because they want to take the knowledge they have acquired here, graduate with their fancy American diplomas, return home, and _use that knowledge to benefit the countries they come from__._


Like an appreciation for free markets & capitalism, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, tolerance, a respect for individual rights, reason, and oh, heck, we're giving up on those ourselves and cheering about it on this forum.

----------


## Corydoras

> Like an appreciation for free markets & capitalism, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, tolerance, a respect for individual rights, reason


What makes you think they're going to pick up American civic culture to such depth during a few short years here when most Americans have no appreciation for them? If Americans appreciated these things, Ron Paul's campaign would be doing a lot better.

These students aren't coming here to read John Bogle and Richard Posner, let alone Emily Dickinson and Leroy Anderson. And they're going to have their noses firmly stuck in their books... books which are likely to be in fields of strategic value to their home countries... engineering and science.

----------


## allyinoh

> Right right - I'm a troll
> 
> Give me a break


What is wrong with protecting this country by trying to curb people who want to come here and cause trouble?

Did you know that the 9/11 hijackers were here on EXPIRED student visas?  Do you not think that is an issue?  Do you think that our only problem with illegal immigration comes from the border?

----------

