I am pissed off.

[james1844]

I think your wrong. The people who are already here, legally, won't care. Their children will be citizens. I don't think it's the the big deal you're making it out to be. And you are out of line to call it racist.

I am well within my rights as member of the Ron Paul community to call a foul when I see it. I feel I've earned it.

 

[ronpaul4pres]

The country with the most terrorism is...take a guess.

India.

Why don't we issue a blanket denial to all indian visa applicants then?

It may have the most terrorism, but against whom is the terror directed? America or within India's own borders?

If there were Indians coming here to terrorize Americans, then, sure, issuing denials as suggested would be prudent.

 

[NeoconPaulsupporter]

Well, the students are more than welcome to have their own Revolution, overthrow their fanatical clerics and leaders, and get their nation's off Paul's list.

Oh, and student visas is not about immigration.

 

[Dr.3D]

I am well within my rights as member of the Ron Paul community to call a foul when I see it. I feel I've earned it.

And you have.... now what?

 

[Ozwest]

I am well within my rights as member of the Ron Paul community to call a foul when I see it. I feel I've earned it.

Are you suggesting that terrorists are not proportionately more likely to be of middle eastern origin?

I too, wish the world was perfect, and we could all hold hands and buy the world a Coke.

I hate to break it to you, the world is imperfect, and sometimes reality bites!

 

[OptionsTrader]

Well, the students are more than welcome to have their own Revolution, overthrow their fanatical clerics and leaders, and get their nation's off Paul's list.

Oh, and student visas is not about immigration.

Correct, student visas have nothing to do with immigration.

Student visas are a priviledge given to NONimmigrants.

This thread is getting pretty silly isn't it.

See his past legislation to restrict certain student visas
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/welcome.htm

 

[james1844]

Are you suggesting that terrorists are not proportionately more likely to be of middle eastern origin?

I too, wish the world was perfect, and we could all hold hands and buy the world a Coke.

I hate to break it to you, the world is imperfect, and sometimes reality bites!

I am saying that contuntry of origin has little no correlation with participation in terrorism violence. Rather, terrorists are political criminals and as such, combinations of autobiographical and group membership factors are the key determinants of engaging in terror activity.

Country of origin is NOT one of those factors.

 

[integrity]

with our new non-interventionist foreign policy, there will be no more terrorist nations. we will trade and talk with everyone. but that will happen bit by bit, as other countries see that we are serious about not messing with them.

 

[acroso]

This Ad Kicked Some Ass!

Srub Out Your Vaginas Liberals

 

[NeoconPaulsupporter]

with our new non-interventionist foreign policy, there will be no more terrorist nations. we will trade and talk with everyone. but that will happen bit by bit, as other countries see that we are serious about not messing with them.

Ok, no. That's just silly utopianism. There will still be terrorists. But, they won't need to focus on us as much, if at all. They'll still kill heretics, apostates, homosexuals, westernized women, pagans, ect. as they attempt to install or enforce their brand of radical Islamic law in their own nations. And yes, even outside of their own nations. Ever heard of Islamic seperatist groups?

What IS realistic is that we won't drive moderate muslims into hating us enough that they sign up with the radicals to kill us, instead of killing the radicals.

 

[jmarinara]

1) Its racist. Paul himself has said that policies like the war on drugs which target groups, rather than types of individuals are inherently improper. He said this at the morgan state debate and in his writings. Targeting birthright citizenship and student loans from "terrorist nations" means that minorities and people who are unfortunate enough to be born in the middle east will be excluded from the American dream. - In good conscience I can't support that. If you believe in human rights, you shouldn't also support de-facto race based policies like that.

No it's not racist. It has nothing to do with race. If Canada was harboring people that hated our guts, Ron Paul would be against giving them visas too.

2) It make Paul look like a flip flopper. Why should Paul call himself a constitutionalist when his support for the constitution is selective? Birthright citizenship is guarateed under the 14th amendment to the constitution.

And amending that constitution is in and of itself constitutional. Birthright citizenship is a bad idea from an era when we were amending the constitution without the proper consideration.

3) It alienated moderates. Why should I support Paul for his anti-war and fiscal prudence stance when I can get the same stuff from liberals like Obama without the racist baggage? I'm a moderate, this alienates me. It also makes it harder for me to sell Ron to other democrats.

*sigh* If you think you are going to get "fiscal prudence" from a Democrat, you are sadly mistaken. BTW: If you really want to see racism, try out Fred Thompson or Hillary Clinton for a while. And dare I say it, Barrack Obama too.

4) We don't need to change policies to win. Ron has already gotten a ton of support from former Tancredo people with his stance on border security. - Why bust out with this no student visas stuff now?

It's not a change. It's usual hard line immigration stuff. Paul's a hardliner on the issue.

5) Its stupid. Terrorism is a function of being politicized and having resources. Its a phenomenon which crosses boundaries. Its not just limited to the middle east. If you know anything about terrorism, this seems painfully obvious. Up till now, the paul campaign has been smart about terrorism, but this policy won't help protect america from terrorism.

I want you to re-read the sentence I put in bold above. Take a few days and really think about that one. Essentially you are saying something similar to "inner city people commit crimes because they have poor schools, a lack of employment, and no opportunities" when in reality that's just a cop out because no one wants to admit it's the other way around.

 

[integrity]

Ok, no. That's just silly utopianism. There will still be terrorists. But, they won't need to focus on us as much, if at all. They'll still kill heretics, apostates, homosexuals, westernized women, pagans, ect. as they attempt to install or enforce their brand of radical Islamic law in their own nations. And yes, even outside of their own nations. Ever heard of Islamic seperatist groups?

What IS realistic is that we won't drive moderate muslims into hating us enough that they sign up with the radicals to kill us, instead of killing the radicals.

ok I'll buy that. And the moderates will have to take more responsibility for their own fanatics....like we are.

 

[Spirit of '76]

All,

I need to tell you, my fellow Ron Paul supporters, that I am seriously considering jumping ship to support another candidate over this latest campaign ad.

Then you must not be much of a Ron Paul supporter.

1) Its racist.

No it's not. Illegal immigrants come from many countries and can be of any race. Ireland, for example, remains a huge source of illegal immigration to the US, and Irish who break our immigration laws should face the same penalties as anyone else.

My wife is in immigrant who came here legally. We have gone through hell and paid thousands of dollars, following all the official channels, making sure we have dotted every i and crossed every t.

And then people like you come along and slap us in the face by wanting to reward those who flaunted the law and took the easy way out, just because you hold this condescending stereotype that all illegal immigrants are poor and brown and need your pity.

2) It make Paul look like a flip flopper. Why should Paul call himself a constitutionalist when his support for the constitution is selective? Birthright citizenship is guarateed under the 14th amendment to the constitution.

You sound like Tim Russert.

Here are a few facts for your edification:

a.) Amending the Constitution is constitutional. That portion of the 14th Amendment can be amended by following constitutional procedures.

b.) The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified, anyway.

3) It alienated moderates. Why should I support Paul for his anti-war and fiscal prudence stance when I can get the same stuff from liberals like Obama without the racist baggage? I'm a moderate, this alienates me. It also makes it harder for me to sell Ron to other democrats.

Well, we're trying to win the Republican nomination right now, anyway. Ron is running on a traditional conservative platform.

4) We don't need to change policies to win. Ron has already gotten a ton of support from former Tancredo people with his stance on border security. - Why bust out with this no student visas stuff now?

What change in policy? Dr. Paul proposed that idea back in 2002.

5) Its stupid. Terrorism is a function of being politicized and having resources. Its a phenomenon which crosses boundaries. Its not just limited to the middle east. If you know anything about terrorism, this seems painfully obvious. Up till now, the paul campaign has been smart about terrorism, but this policy won't help protect america from terrorism.

Do you even have any idea what the bill proposed? It certainly wasn't restricted to the Middle East, and what it does is provide a peaceful, diplomatic, and non-interventionist incentive for foreign governments known to sponsor terrorist groups to mend their ways.

If you've got your panties in such a bunch over this ad, then perhaps you would be happier in Obama's "progressive" fantasyland.

 

[Ozwest]

I am saying that contuntry of origin has little no correlation with participation in terrorism violence. Rather, terrorists are political criminals and as such, combinations of autobiographical and group membership factors are the key determinants of engaging in terror activity.

Country of origin is NOT one of those factors.

One word... Semantics

 

[james1844]

I want you to re-read the sentence I put in bold above. Take a few days and really think about that one. Essentially you are saying something similar to "inner city people commit crimes because they have poor schools, a lack of employment, and no opportunities" when in reality that's just a cop out because no one wants to admit it's the other way around.

For that statement I relied on a multinomial logist regression analysis of the Sageman Terrorism database containing 366 members of the global salafi jihad. I'm working on my dissertation on terrorism.

Socioeconomic status is a mild risk factor for delinquent activity, but thats off topic.

I believe the bill that Paul proposed is racist in its practical application. It it is inconsistent with Paul's basic philosophy on race and gives me less cause for supporting him.

 

[NeoconPaulsupporter]

ok I'll buy that. And the moderates will have to take more responsibility for their own fanatics....like we are.

Yep. It's simple, really. We won't try to police inside your countries, but we can police where people are coming into our country from. If your nation is on the naughty list, I'm sorry. You, of course could try policing your own nation. Have a revolution. We had a violent one, and are presently working on a peaceful one.

And, if anyone thinks a nation like Saudia Arabia is doing anything remotely reasonable, as far as terrorism goes...I have a bridge I'd like to sell ya.

Folks, imagine if another major terror attack happens on this soil. The populace will scream for war again. They will demand retribution. It's that, or take some reasonable steps at policing where people are coming into this nation from.

Hopefully, between non-interventionism, smart and reasonable immigration and foreign visitation policies, we won't have a situation that will stoke the flames of war.

 

[khorbis]

I am saying that contuntry of origin has little no correlation with participation in terrorism violence. Rather, terrorists are political criminals and as such, combinations of autobiographical and group membership factors are the key determinants of engaging in terror activity.

Country of origin is NOT one of those factors.

I don't think you can say for a fact that terroists are "political" criminals. Most terrorism results from religion more than political ideology. Regardless, country of origin IS a fact when a country is KNOWN for harbor/raising terrorists due to our irresponsible, damaging foreign policy. As unfair as visa denial on that basis is, I sincerely believe the impact it will have will be either negligible and/or short-lived. Ron Paul is not the type of person that would willingly deny an honest, sincere individual looking for opportunity to live in America unless circumstances drove him to do so. I, for one, believe that our circumstances are dire indeed.

I can tell you are upset James. I'll let this be my last response on the matter. I just urge you to focus on the positive aspects of our endeavor, rather than linger on matters of less importance than say...our near bankrupt economy, or the easeless waging of war in the middle east, or perhaps the continuing decline in education/health care/morality in the world?

Ron Paul isn't perfect, but is, above all, sincere in his words and deeds.

 

[james1844]

One word... Semantics

Country or origin is closely correlated with race. if everyone from a particular country, Saudi Arabia* for example, is arab, then denying visa applicants from that country is racist in its practical application, because it affects only Arabs.

Its similar to whole crack powder cocaine disparity. If the only people who use crack are black, and you say that using crack has a longer prison sentence, then blacks do more time in prison.

The best way to screen for terrorists is to use intelligence and law enforcement to identify specific individuals and screen them out. Otherwise you're just racially profiling.

Paul's proposed bill is essentially racist in its impact.

Its also inconsistent with his views on collectivism.

Also, I'm less willing to lend my support after that ad.

 

[jmarinara]

For that statement I relied on a multinomial logist regression analysis of the Sageman Terrorism database containing 366 members of the global salafi jihad. I'm working on my dissertation on terrorism.

Socioeconomic status is a mild risk factor for delinquent activity, but thats off topic.

I believe the bill that Paul proposed is racist in its practical application. It it is inconsistent with Paul's basic philosophy on race and gives me less cause for supporting him.

Dude, terrorists are terrorists because they subscribe to a version of a religion that tells them that the only way they are assured paradise is if they kill people. (doesn't speak to the religion as a whole, although I think it has other theological problems, but does speak to this version of it) They subscribe to this religion because powerful people keep their power if they only allow this religion to be chosen. Look no further than www.persecution.org for proof of this.

Saying they are terrorists because they have no money or are told they aren't good enough or got spanked as a child or didn't have their dreams and hopes fulfilled or whatever other ridiculous reason is just plain dumb.

Sorry man, but that's just common sense.

 

[Dr.3D]

james1844, I have to ask if you consider the present, 'War on Terrorism', a racist war? After all, the United States military is sent to another country to fight with people who are of another race. Does that make our present government racist?