I am pissed off.

[srmpass98]

That's all well and good, but you have completely neglected to address the crux of the issue, namely that the legislation Dr. Paul introduced does not provide for a blanket denial of visas based on nationality, and that closer scrutiny of student visa applications from citizens of certain political entities does not in any way equate to a blanket denial based on race.

It seems like I've failed, but can you get an "OFFICIAL" response from the HQ on this matter. Either its confusing a lot of people (like me) or its as the ad suggested (and the lady whom I spoke to earlier).

Thanks

 

[Ozwest]

Your views on the importance of racial politics are all well and good, but you have completely neglected to address the crux of the issue here, which is that the legislation Dr. Paul introduced does not provide for a blanket denial of visas based on nationality, and that closer scrutiny of student visa applications from citizens of certain political entities does not in any way equate to a blanket denial based on race.

You have answered my question (post # 160).

I am considerably relieved! Thank you.

 

[Spirit of '76]

It seems like I've failed, but can you get an "OFFICIAL" response from the HQ on this matter. Either its confusing a lot of people (like me) or its as the ad suggested (and the lady whom I spoke to earlier).

Thanks

I will call Jesse Benton and ask for clarification tomorrow.

 

[NeoconPaulsupporter]

We could always go kill Jihadis in Pakistan. Then we won't really have to worry about the increased likelyhood of terrorists slipping in on student visas.

 

[Ozwest]

We could always go kill Jihadis in Pakistan. Then we won't really have to worry about the increased likelyhood of terrorists slipping in on student visas.

You obviously don't understand Ron Pauls foreign policy.

 

[NeoconPaulsupporter]

You obviously don't understand Ron Pauls foreign policy.

Actually, I understand it very well. I'm also a non-interventionist. I'm simply outlining the alternative to restricting visas to nations harboring, funding, and intentionally turning a blind eye to Jihadists.

 

[NeoconPaulsupporter]

Another alternative. The students pissed off about not being able to attend a US university on a visa, could stay stay home and pick up a rifle, and drag the Jihadists out of the mosques.

 

[acroso]

Ron Paul supporters who think we should give VISAS to terrorist nations are "STUCK ON STUPID."

 

[lbadragan]

This is hardly about me really. Trust me when I say this, a large majority of the people that are there espouse the same fundamental ideals as any American. For us to sacrifice a seemingly coherent foreign policy prerogative on the basis of "risk" assessment discrimination is beyond me really.

Why can we not increase the barriers towards student visas in problematic nations? Make it more transparent and also make it so we allow entry to those people that are here for higher education, job etc. A blanket refusal is on par with a refusal without prejudice, without judgment and without considerations merely based on nationality.

The fact is that Pakistanis, Saudi Arabians, Iraqis, etc... pose a much greater risk to our national security than people from other nations without a terrorist problem. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. This is a policy based on risk. It's not discrimination and it's not racism. You may see it that way because it may affect your race or people from the nation you came from, but you have no reason to conclude that this is discrimination or racism. Also, students seeking higher education and jobs can still be terrorists. There are poor, middle class, and wealthy terrorists. You cannot screen them out. That's the problem, and Ron Paul's position is the only rational one. If RP gets elected maybe people won't feel the same way toward America in 20 years, but until then we have to face reality. As a fellow immigrant I know what an awesome blessing it is to be welcomed into the American family, but I still believe a nation has a right to choose who it will adopt.

This is what I am getting at. Ask yourself this, why is a person like me vehemently supporting no amnesty, stronger border security etc but not this? Its a wrong position and severely detrimental in normalizing ties with the middle east.

I think you don't support this because you feel that it's an attack on entire peoples, a race, or a religion. But it's not. I challenge to re-evaluate whether this policy is about race and nationality. And I also think you're mistaken in believing that immigration policy has a significan effect on normalizing or hurting ties with the mid east. We along with the UK have allowed middle easterners in, and we're fiercely hated by the mid east. I'm not saying that they don't have good reasons for hating us, I'm just saying that immigration did nothing to make them like us. Immigration is not the issue regarding relations with mid-eastern nations. Foreign policy is.

 

[Ozwest]

Actually, I understand it very well. I'm also a non-interventionist. I'm simply outlining the alternative to restricting visas to nations harboring, funding, and intentionally turning a blind eye to Jihadists.

It is probably not your intention, but statements such as "We could always go kill Jihadists in Pakistan. Then we won't really have to worry about the increased likelyhood of terrorists slipping in on student visas." could be construed as arrogant and imprudent, to say the least.

 

[srmpass98]

The fact is that Pakistanis, Saudi Arabians, Iraqis, etc... pose a much greater risk to our national security than people from other nations without a terrorist problem. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. This is a policy based on risk. It's not discrimination and it's not racism. You may see it that way because it may affect your race or people from the nation you came from, but you have no reason to conclude that this is discrimination or racism. Also, students seeking higher education and jobs can still be terrorists. There are poor, middle class, and wealthy terrorists. You cannot screen them out. That's the problem, and Ron Paul's position is the only rational one. If RP gets elected maybe people won't feel the same way toward America in 20 years, but until then we have to face reality. As a fellow immigrant I know what an awesome blessing it is to be welcomed into the American family, but I still believe a nation has a right to choose who it will adopt.

I never said it was racist. I know Dr. Paul has the right intentions, I think the philosophy behind it is not. Its not because it effects a certain group of people, its hardly the case. We've had a history of giving students visas, I think if anything our position on grating student visas should be more stringent. What you are suggesting is a blanket denial, meaning there is no credence to an individual, but rather to the concept of nationality. Can you understand from a logical standpoint how this is problematic, at least to supporters like me?

I think you don't support this because you feel that it's an attack on entire peoples, a race, or a religion. But it's not. I challenge to re-evaluate whether this policy is about race and nationality. And I also think you're mistaken in believing that immigration policy has a significan effect on normalizing or hurting ties with the mid east. We along with the UK have allowed middle easterners in, and we're fiercely hated by the mid east. I'm not saying that they don't have good reasons for hating us, I'm just saying that immigration did nothing to make them like us. Immigration is not the issue regarding relations with mid-eastern nations. Foreign policy is.

I don't think effective immigration policy is what incites the radicals at all. That is why I'm all for No amnesty, strict border security and more harsh and thorough immigration reform. This business of appropriating Terrorist State and subsequently punishing those who are born there is what I am alluding to. I will patiently await HQ response specifically on this matter.

 

[NeoconPaulsupporter]

It is probably not your intention, but statements such as "We could always go kill Jihadists in Pakistan. Then we won't really have to worry about the increased likelyhood of terrorists slipping in on student visas." could be construed as arrogant and imprudent, to say the least.

That's the reality of the situation. Ron Paul had damn well restrict access into this country from terrorist supporting and harboring nations. Short of that, if another terror attacks is successful, the drums of war will beat again.

 

[Dr.3D]

The cost of doing an investigation into each and every person who wants a VISA and is from a country that supports terrorism would be very high. Who would pay for such investigations? Perhaps this is why the blanket statement on no VISAs to persons who would be coming in from a country that supports terrorism.

I suppose they could have the person who wants the VISA pay for the investigation.

 

[james1844]

The fact is that Pakistanis, Saudi Arabians, Iraqis, etc... pose a much greater risk to our national security than people from other nations without a terrorist problem. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. This is a policy based on risk. It's not discrimination and it's not racism. You may see it that way because it may affect your race or people from the nation you came from, but you have no reason to conclude that this is discrimination or racism. Also, students seeking higher education and jobs can still be terrorists. There are poor, middle class, and wealthy terrorists. You cannot screen them out. That's the problem, and Ron Paul's position is the only rational one. If RP gets elected maybe people won't feel the same way toward America in 20 years, but until then we have to face reality. As a fellow immigrant I know what an awesome blessing it is to be welcomed into the American family, but I still believe a nation has a right to choose who it will adopt.

I think you don't support this because you feel that it's an attack on entire peoples, a race, or a religion. But it's not. I challenge to re-evaluate whether this policy is about race and nationality. And I also think you're mistaken in believing that immigration policy has a significan effect on normalizing or hurting ties with the mid east. We along with the UK have allowed middle easterners in, and we're fiercely hated by the mid east. I'm not saying that they don't have good reasons for hating us, I'm just saying that immigration did nothing to make them like us. Immigration is not the issue regarding relations with mid-eastern nations. Foreign policy is.

Its NOT a fact. When I did my analysis, I found that country of origin was not related to participation in violent terrorist activity. The media hypes this, but national origin may not be related to terrorism at all.

 

[Duckman]

I suppose they could have the person who wants the VISA pay for the investigation.

I would support that 100%. I went to a college that had alot of foreign students (and yes, many middle eastern). Almost without exception, the foreign students were well off. Very well off. Well off enough that they can afford an American college without any of the forms of assistance available to US citizens (Pell Grants, federal loans, etc.). I think that means well off enough to pay for their own investigation through a steep visa fee.

 

[srmpass98]

I suppose they could have the person who wants the VISA pay for the investigation.

YES. BY ALL MEANS.

 

[Dr.3D]

YES. BY ALL MEANS.

When I had my background investigation to get a "TOP SECRET" clearance, the government told me it cost them more than $20,000. That was back in 1970. Imagine what it would cost now.

 

[DarkReign]

I hated the AD, and I think the campaign needs to clarify what they mean by "terrorist nations", because that is bullshit.

 

[0zzy]

I hated the AD, and I think the campaign needs to clarify what they mean by "terrorist nations", because that is bullshit.

What does the State Department clarify as "terrorist nation"?

 

[NeoconPaulsupporter]

The cost of doing an investigation into each and every person who wants a VISA and is from a country that supports terrorism would be very high. Who would pay for such investigations? Perhaps this is why the blanket statement on no VISAs to persons who would be coming in from a country that supports terrorism.

I suppose they could have the person who wants the VISA pay for the investigation.

Um, shouldn't EVERYONE wanting a visa have to fund their own investigations? Why is the taxpayer paying in the first place? I hadn't thought of it that way.