I am pissed off.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that being against certain immigration policies is racist. If I'm not mistaken, suggesting that student visas should not be granted to people from countries that support terrorism has nothing to do with race. I would suggest that you saw an image of a certain type of person (middle-eastern maybe) in your mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a race-based sentiment. You have fallen for the BS that the liberals and the illegal immigrants and syumpathizers have been chanting (that anyone that is against amnesty or for enforcing our immigration laws is a racist).

You should take a deep breath and listen to his position more closely with what I've just said in mind...

DUDE, are you reasoning correctly? It discriminates based on country. Think about it, middle eastern contries have upwards of 97% persons of Arab ethnicity. Its an anti-arab policy - and a total violation of Paul's philosophies, as he himself has laid them out.

Get a GRIP.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Damn it.


Got this from optionstrader on another thread. Anyhow, who's flip flopping, before freaking out understand him completely. I agree w/ him 100%. but then I again I guess you'll probably like for us to have REAL ID cards instead.

tally 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 1 second

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."
 
Freedom, I've been pulling for Paul for months here in DC, tons of email, going door to door, money, phone calls in support of Paul. I've used my time, as well as my personal and social capital to help Paul.

So, you can buzz off. I deserve to make my opinion known.

But you obviously had no idea of RP positions.
 
Nothing wrong with the ad, it's exactly what it is. An ad targeted to a specific audience. This is pandering by the campaign. End birthright citizenship is nothing new, no more student visas from terrorist nations is nothing new.

Calm down, this is a great ad to get out on Fox news :)
 
I don't think the U.S.A. owes people abroad anything. It is a privilege to be allowed to come to this country.

That is not racism.



I am an immigrant myself and the U.S. immigration policy is already very selective. I am an Australian and it was much easier for me to come over here and live with my wife (who is a US Citizen) than it is for someone from the Philippines. We have a friend who is married to a Filipino and he had to wait two years to get her a visa to come.
 
Bob,

Don't be stupid. Paul needs a plurality to win. Obama has called for Tax cuts, and, to tell you the truth, as much as I despise socialism, Hillary's husband was the only president in 20 years to balance the budget.

I'm a paul supporter, but this ad is over the top. Its sucks major balls.

hey I have some major disagreements with Paul to, but he is by far the best candidate, obama voted for the patrio act, will continue the war(which is what is draining the most money) etc.

This wording is a bit of political pandering, still this is not even %1 of what the other candidates do...
 
I don't have strong feelings about immigration one way or another, but I think this ad should be pulled if it's going to upset people this much. Bringing in new people is not worth it if it's going to chase away the established supporters. There's a reason why Hunter and Tancredo never broke 2%.
 
Actually, I'd say, and so does Ron Paul, that the 14th amendment grants birthright citizenship for only those under the jurisdiction of the US and that this does not extend to illegal aliens. To him, this would only be affirming the intent of the amendment, not rewriting the constitution.
 
DUDE, are you reasoning correctly? It discriminates based on country. Think about it, middle eastern contries have upwards of 97% persons of Arab ethnicity. Its an anti-arab policy - and a total violation of Paul's philosophies, as he himself has laid them out.

Get a GRIP.

When 19 of the 21 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, we're discriminating, I mean look at Pakistan now, a country so unstable and who really doesn't help us in the "fight against terrorism".
 
DUDE, are you reasoning correctly? It discriminates based on country. Think about it, middle eastern contries have upwards of 97% persons of Arab ethnicity. Its an anti-arab policy - and a total violation of Paul's philosophies, as he himself has laid them out.

Get a GRIP.

Iran is not an arab country, the same for lybia, i think...
 
DUDE, are you reasoning correctly? It discriminates based on country. Think about it, middle eastern contries have upwards of 97% persons of Arab ethnicity. Its an anti-arab policy - and a total violation of Paul's philosophies, as he himself has laid them out.

Get a GRIP.


Umm, if you must use that silly word (discrimination), here's my response: PEOPLE DISCRIMINATE ON A DAILY BASIS! Some discrimination is absolutely valid and appropriate. For example, I discriminate against known child-molestors when it comes to looking for a baby-sitter. In this particular case, Ron Paul discriminates against people that break our laws and countries that support assholes that want to kill innocent men, women, and children (mostly Americans). I for one LIKE that type of discrimination.

Hmm, it would seem that I DO have a grip...
 
Sounds to me like some here are arguing for the libertarian position on immigration. Sorry, but Dr Paul is still running under the Republican banner.

Dr Paul has libertarian leanings, but is not 100% libertarian.

Now, if you wish to vote libertarian, feel free. But if someone chooses to vote for Obama instead, I think you're supporting Ron Paul for the wrong reasons, tbh.

I don't care for 1 issue voters. If someone is here simply because of his anti-war position for example, I don't want to hear this in 2010: "Well I voted for him so I demand he change his stance on XYZ." By now, you should already know his positions, and know that he comes to them with well reasoned and thoughtful consideration. He's not going to change his positions to gain your support. He may highlight some of his positions you don't like but well...

You're never going to agree with anyone 100% except for yourself. So short of running for office yourself, if you're going to support an establishment candidate because you disagree with Dr Paul over one issue - well then I'm with the others - *waves*


.
 
Last edited:
Stick around...we all compromise on some issue where we don't agree with others....I jump off the threads when the 9/11 truthers start to jump in....
 
1) There's nothing racist about scrutinizing immigrants, students, or visitors from nations that happen to sponsor terrorists. I think this is prudent. Ron Paul is not suggesting to ban them outright. They are not American citizens, they have no constitutional right to be here. Foreigners visiting America, immigrating to America, studying in America, etc, they must obey our laws.

2) Birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the constitution, yes. However unlike all the other candidates, Ron Paul wants to actually amend the constitution (which is constitutional by the way) rather then create new laws which simply ignore it. There's nothing unconstitutional about ammending the constitution, in fact birth right citizenship was an amendment itself.

3) Well it shouldn't alienate moderates. Almost all Americans want our borders secured, and they want to be protected from terrorists. Having us invade/terrorize other nations is not the answer. But securing our borders and strengthening our defense is common sense. We don't need to instigate/propogate wars all over the world, but keeping us safe at home and putting the safety of our citizens here above the "convenience" of foreigners is not too much to ask.

4) Ron Paul is not changing anything. He has always been PRO-DEFENSE/SOVEREIGNTY, ANTI-INTERVENTION. And that's how it should be, that's what we should expect from our president as outlined by the constitution.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Damn it.
 
I am 100% behind Ron Paul and the commercial. I knew his record before the commercial so this doesn't surprise me at all. There's nothing new about his position on this so I'm not sure where the OP is coming from. Maybe he's just a jealous liberal since he seems to be keen on supporting Obama who wants the government to take care of you from cradle to grave, won't commit to ending the Iraq war by 2013, and voted for the renewal of the Patriot Act. Why is he a good candidate again? Don't ask me.
 
OH and everyone stop with the, "then leave" post whenever someone criticizes Dr. Paul, thats dumb and it does not serve our purpose...
 
Some of you seem to forget Paul is a republican and conservative. We don't like the illegal mexican invasion. Period.

If your liberal and can't understand this then don't let the door knock you on your ass on the way out.

Pimp,

We need to face the facts. The republican party is shrinking, to win the election, we - by we, I mean the Paul campaign - needs to appeal to a purality of voters. America is a multi-ethnic society, a majority of the country is non-white. This kind of thing makes it harder to get votes from traditionally disenfrancished populations like African-Americans and Hispanics. These groups comprise 30% of the USA. To alienate ethnic groups like this is silly.
 
Back
Top