Extremely extremely dissappointed

[Brian4Liberty]

I realize that our nation has been through some tough times lately, and that the rule of law, of the constitution, must be restored. It is, however, one of the priceless tenets of our founders that the borders remain open to immigrants.

Nothing personal, but I see this opinion often.

Could you quote for us the portion of the Constitution that guarantees open borders for all? It may be there, but since you bring it up, maybe you can find and quote it for us.

Thanks.

 

[srmpass98]

It sounds like you are already a traitor to the country AND the Ron Paul campaign. You said you are a Pakistani that has gotten US citizenship. The USA and Pakistan are two different countries. Which one do you belong to?

I guess the concept of dual citizenship is something alien to you? In any case, the word "traitor" seems harsh consider I agree with most of his immigration platform.

 

[peter_lifton]

Wow - that is low. Lot's of people have dual citizenship. I can totally see how someone's entire nation of origin being labelled a terrorist nation is upsetting, especially when coming from someone you look up to. I sincerely hope you'd take back that traitor accusation - it's the same bs as naming the Patriot Act the Patriot Act.

That said, the ad is a necessary evil and will work wonders for the our cause so I am happy with it.

Sorry, I still question his loyalty to the country. He just becomes an American citizen and is using the Ron Paul campaign and the country itself to shill for more of his countrymen to be able to come to the US as students to take the slots of American students (i.e. people who were born here and can't immigrant to Pakistan). Very entitled.

 

[allyinoh]

I just need some logical closure that is all.

Look I'm all aboard his economic policy (something which I feel is his strongest point). I'm all for the elimination of the IRS, the war against inflation tax, the gradual closing of the federal reserve and the FIAT currency.

A lot of his points on immigration are spot on (no amnesty, border security). However, this issue with student visas is deplorable. HQ itself was very antagonistic on the ad, fervently defending it. I'm hoping Dr. Paul reverses this position as it will inevitably alienate a lot of people who are more sensitive to issues such as this.

I'm a little late to this but...

Student visas ARE an issue. The 9/11 hijackers came here and were here on student visas, that were expired might I add. Also, a friend of mine has a friend who came here on a student visa and his expired over 5 years ago and he's still here!

Plus, "terrorist nations" is not defined. You are assuming that it's going to be a broad black out. I don't like jumping to conclusions and you probably shouldn't either until more explanation is put out.

That leads me back to my initial issue that student visas are a problem that we have to deal with including the borders. If you don't think that terrorists could possibly come here on student visas then I think you're a little delusional.

You shouldn't take it so personally, but if this is the 1 thing out of many more important issues that will stop you from supporting Ron Paul and support one of the other candidates, then by all means, go support someone else.

 

[peter_lifton]

I guess the concept of dual citizenship is something alien to you? In any case, the word "traitor" seems harsh consider I agree with most of his immigration platform.

Is duty to your country alien to you? I'm a dual citizen and my daughter is as well...and I put the USA first because I live here....the OP doesn't put the USA first.

Plus there's the whole issue of all the highjackers got into the country in the first place on a student visa.

Traitor: one who betrays an obligation or duty

 

[nist7]

I am a Pakistani who has recently gotten citizenship to USA. I graduated from UWashington this year and have gotten through the long, thorough legal process of immigration. I have also campaigned on behalf of a candidate whom I felt represented most in what I believed in, and Ron Paul (by virtue of extensive research) was easily the most appealing.

Until now.

Am I led to believe that by virtue of my nationality that I would effectively be declined any valid visa? Am I led to believe that the many folks I've judiciously converted to Ron Paul are effectively part of a "terrorist nation" and as a consequence have no business being here? Am I led to believe that despite the many similarities in political ideology and philosophy, that my views are inherently "dangerous" by virtue of my ethnicity and my background?

I have no problem with strict scrutiny. However, the campaign HQ have confirmed the details of the ad which in my humble opinion is outrageous. Many people seek refuge in the promise and future of the opportunity to study and live in USA (LEGALLY I MIGHT ADD). To deny them this right on the basis of their nationality is a profound oversight and hugely contradictory to his overall foreign policy.

This new development has been a complete shock for a lot of people here in Seattle. I feel very disheartened given the time, money and effort spent for the candidate I felt had the pulse of the American nation.

VERY shocked.

I am a legal immigrant from China. I too was shocked by that one short sentence: "No more student visas from terrorist nations." What exactly did you confirm with the HQ?

The message is probably well-intentioned but the way it was said was quite shocking and would falsely lead you to believe that somehow Dr. Paul would deny immigration AT ALL COSTS from "terrorist nations."

Aren't there other ways to immigrate legally without using a student visa? Something like a work visa or whatever? I think the issue here is that student visas may be too easy to obtain....which may helped the 911 terrorists take down the towers. Ron Paul is for stricter immigration control and checks....so that the people who do want to come here can and those who have nefarious backgrounds are kept out.

Also, may I add that even if you disagree with this ONE policy.....what candidate is BETTER than Ron Paul? I do not agree with everything Ron Paul says but I agree with him on issues more than any OTHER viable candidate.

So you have to ask yourself....would you sacrafice your liberty, your money, this war, the economy, the constitution.....over this ONE issue?

If not Paul, WHOM?

If not now, WHEN?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Am I led to believe that despite the many similarities in political ideology and philosophy, that my views are inherently "dangerous" by virtue of my ethnicity and my background?

Are all countries 100% homogeneous in terms of ethnicity and background? I believe that most countries have some kind of mix (especially the bigger ones). What if some country wanted to ban American students? Which ethnicity would they be targeting?

I find it very disturbing that the race card is being brought into this. Nothing in the brief "advertisement" leads me to believe that race is an issue here, not even inferred. And when the past proposals/legislation/statements from Dr. Paul are looked at in detail, I see no indicator of that at all.

Why this obsession with bringing up racism? Does someone automatically win a debate as soon as it is brought up? The ultimate trump card? Do some people see racism everywhere?

I believe the campaign ad is talking about terrorists, and trying to prevent them from entering the country. The current system certainly failed us miserably.

It is unfortunate that immigration has been tied to terrorism. But since that is how the 9/11 terrorists got here, the focus has landed there. And how do you you go into the details in a 5 second sound-bite?

Some politicians seem to want to bomb other countries, yet still do nothing about how 9/11 occurred in the first place. I believe the campaign wants to express that Ron Paul is different, and wants to look at the root causes and failures in the system. Once again, how do you do that in a 5 second sound-bite?

 

[DAFTEK]

In all fairness i was an emigrant myself for 5 years from Romania before i got my American Citizenship and my parents emigrated here in 1979 the LEGAL way from a communist regime! That was not easy considering how many wore murdered when even a slight though of anti communist was revealed! That said the moment i put my foot on USA soil i became an AMERICAN and sworn to PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not ROMANIA! In all fairness whether you like it or not you are an alien before you become a Citizen! My niece just came over the summer with a Work visa to support her college in Romania and Sweden, the problem is not the people of Afghanistan but THE AFGHAN government so if you want to disagree you should go and take it up with Musharaf not Ron Paul, his interest is the American people first!... I am feed up with all these emigrants rights! You earn the right to become an AMERICAN its not a right but a privilege! Enough said!

 

[Corydoras]

I'm a dual citizen and my daughter is as well...and I put the USA first because I live here....the OP doesn't put the USA first.

Yes, I noticed right away that he didn't say that he is an American of Pakistani birth or Pakistani ethnicity.

Not meaning to slam anyone, but shortly after Pearl Harbor, huge numbers of Americans of Japanese ancestry who happened to also be subjects of the Empire of Japan gave up their Japanese citizenship as an active demonstration of their undivided loyalty to the United States. They also objected to being called Japanese-Americans (they didn't like the implication of being half and half) and insisted on being called either Japanese Americans (no hyphen, i.e. Americans who are Japanese) or, more clearly, Americans of Japanese ancestry.

I wish more contemporary immigrants felt that way.

 

[Corydoras]

Something like a work visa or whatever?

There are lots and lots of other kinds of visa. For example, Ron Paul has never (as far as I know) shown any problem with the O-1 visa.

The student visa (the F-1 or M-1) is NOT intended to be a road in to citizenship. People with student visas are supposed to leave if they don't find an employer who will sponsor them for an H-1b visa. And even an H-1b visa only lasts for 6 years maximum.

 

[kalami]

I share your disappointment. I'd really like to hear Paul elaborate on this. What is going to constitute a terrorist nation? What keeps a terrorist from forging papers from a country like Jordan, the UAE, Russia or any other typically non-terrorist associated countries?

 

[rockwell]

Are all countries 100% homogeneous in terms of ethnicity and background? I believe that most countries have some kind of mix (especially the bigger ones). What if some country wanted to ban American students? Which ethnicity would they be targeting?

I find it very disturbing that the race card is being brought into this. Nothing in the brief "advertisement" leads me to believe that race is an issue here, not even inferred. And when the past proposals/legislation/statements from Dr. Paul are looked at in detail, I see no indicator of that at all.

Why this obsession with bringing up racism? Does someone automatically win a debate as soon as it is brought up? The ultimate trump card? Do some people see racism everywhere?

I believe the campaign ad is talking about terrorists, and trying to prevent them from entering the country. The current system certainly failed us miserably.

It is unfortunate that immigration has been tied to terrorism. But since that is how the 9/11 terrorists got here, the focus has landed there. And how do you you go into the details in a 5 second sound-bite?

Some politicians seem to want to bomb other countries, yet still do nothing about how 9/11 occurred in the first place. I believe the campaign wants to express that Ron Paul is different, and wants to look at the root causes and failures in the system. Once again, how do you do that in a 5 second sound-bite?

Gee Brian, you don't know much about the world, do you? China is the biggest country and they don't allow immigration. They are 100% homogenous- ethnic differences, but racially all Asian, ditto India, and virtually the entire African continent. Japan is also homogenous and with the exception of the Western World virtually no one else engages in the immigration policies that we do.

You want some context? In 1965 America was over 90% White and when Edward Kennedy helped push the Immigration and Naturalization Act RESTRICTING immigration from European countries in favor of non-white countries he pledged that it would NOT alter the racial makeup of America, back when you could say that and get away with it.

So in short, do some research.

 

[Corydoras]

What is going to constitute a terrorist nation?

The State Department decides. Here is their explanation:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64337.htm

 

[kalami]

Gee Brian, you don't know much about the world, do you? China is the biggest country and they don't allow immigration. They are 100% homogenous- ethnic differences, but racially all Asian, ditto India, and virtually the entire African continent. Japan is also homogenous and with the exception of the Western World virtually no one else engages in the immigration policies that we do.

You want some context? In 1965 America was over 90% White and when Edward Kennedy helped push the Immigration and Naturalization Act RESTRICTING immigration from European countries in favor of non-white countries he pledged that it would NOT alter the racial makeup of America, back when you could say that and get away with it.

So in short, do some research.

What is the difference between race and ethnicity in the context being used here?

China actually does allow for immigration and they're opening it up more to attract workers.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Gee Brian, you don't know much about the world, do you? China is the biggest country and they don't allow immigration. They are 100% homogenous- ethnic differences, but racially all Asian, ditto India, and virtually the entire African continent. Japan is also homogenous and with the exception of the Western World virtually no one else engages in the immigration policies that we do.

You want some context? In 1965 America was over 90% White and when Edward Kennedy helped push the Immigration and Naturalization Act RESTRICTING immigration from European countries in favor of non-white countries he pledged that it would NOT alter the racial makeup of America, back when you could say that and get away with it.

So in short, do some research.

Hey Rockwell, I don't know what rock you are hiding under, but you seem to be the one who knows nothing about the world.

And what is the point of your post? Are you trying to say that everyone in India and China are the same (all asian)? I know a lot of people from both places that would disagree with that, and could give you many long lectures about the variety of ethnic, cultural, and racial differences.

I don't know what you are trying to say about Ron Paul, but I believe that his point about terrorist nations is about terrorism. You haven't said anything that changes that.

As for your Kennedy reference, if you think I am a liberal Democrat, or am pushing that agenda, once again, you are wrong.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

What is the difference between race and ethnicity in the context being used here?

In my context (definition), race, ethnicity, and nationality are all separate things.

My point was that nationality does not determine race or ethnicity, therefore "terrorist nation" has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

 

[srmpass98]

In my context (definition), race, ethnicity, and nationality are all separate things.

My point was that nationality does not determine race or ethnicity, therefore "terrorist nation" has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

It seems that my point is lost amongst the speculation that I may/may not be loyal at all to this country. I find that pretty appalling considering I've contributed tremendously to this campaign, much less other social programs in Seattle. The fact that I raise a point I vehemently disagree with on the campaign does not entitle the people of this board to judge me based on conjecture.

That being said, allow me to elaborate. First, if you have followed the campaign as I have, Ron Paul has never uttered the word, "Terrorist Nation", and I can see why as it alienates a lot of people that might live in that country.

Second, the idea that the student visa is limited to the nationality of an individual is preposterous owing to the fact that the phenomenon of terrorism has noting do do with nations but an individuals perspective on a certain ideology.

Third, I said repeatedly I have agreed with most of the immigration policy (no amnesty, strong border security), but the idea that we disallow certain students entry to the USA based on nationality is absurd. I'm all for more scrutiny and more barriers, but not discriminate based on where they come from but what they stand for. If what they stand for is detrimental to the overall national security of the nation, then by all means decline their application.

Also, I never insinuated that Dr Paul is a racist in any way. I think he has the best intentions at heart, its just that this ad and this new turn of events is more to do with an overzealous approach or just confusion on the part of a few supporters like me.

 

[jblosser]

HR 3217, introduced by Ron on July 27, 2007, begins:

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.

CAN WE AGREE that this indicates his traditional position is to limit issuance of student visas to a list of nations, and that the list of nations is reasonably clear in the text of the legislation?

And CAN WE THEREFORE AGREE that the only outstanding question this ad raises is the use of the language "no more" instead of "limited with review"?

I am working on geting that question answered right now by people in a position to talk authoritatively and will post an answer as soon as I have one.

 

[srmpass98]

HR 3217, introduced by Ron on July 27, 2007, begins:



CAN WE AGREE that this indicates his traditional position is to limit issuance of student visas to a list of nations, and that the list of nations is reasonably clear in the text of the legislation?

And CAN WE THEREFORE AGREE that the only outstanding question this ad raises is the use of the language "no more" instead of "limited with review"?

I am working on geting that question answered right now by people in a position to talk authoritatively and will post an answer as soon as I have one.

Yes do so. It appears that some of the people on this forum believe the language of the ad is indeed the position of the campaign. Would love a clarification.

 

[jblosser]

Yes do so. It appears that some of the people on this forum believe the language of the ad is indeed the position of the campaign. Would love a clarification.

OK. I am trying. It's Sunday so it's hard. So far I have a reference from people in the campaign to that bill I quoted as the latest thing Ron has said, but I know this ad is newer than that and the question remains.

I would love to see the arguing stop til we at least get this central question answered, but I'm sure that won't happen...