I have no idea how to respond to this, is Paul's no amnesty stance to strong

[VoteRonPaul2008]

"i have heard of ron paul but i just dont agree with his no amnesty stand
i have friends that have been here since they were 3, that dont know spanish and live the typical lifestyle of any 18 yr old. i dont understand how somebody can turn their back on innocent people. im not sayin that the parents derseve it but the kids dont. im sure its the parents fault but they are here and we need to deal with all these illegal teens. sending them back would be absurd , they wouldnt even know how to function in where ever they are from, any smart person knows that it would traumatic and psychologically wrong to send these kids back and say they are crimminals, last time i checked no 3 year old has been committed of a crime so saying that theres not gonna be an amnesty becuase it will mean rewarding crimminals, is like sayin that hes responsible for coming to this country when they were 3. they might work illegally but what do you expect any other 17 yr old to do , they still get taxes taken off, i dont know but you have to remember that they may be 18 now but you have to see that when it comes to been illegal and been a crimminal they are still the innocent 3 year olds that they were when they came here "

I recieved this email, I don't think Paul is advocating sending them back, but I'm not entirely sure, anyone know a good response?

 

[CelestialRender]

He doesn't support amnesty. They broke the law; that doesn't earn you a reward of getting to skip ahead of the line.

 

[VoteRonPaul2008]

Yeah but she's talking about kids? ending birth right citzenship and shipping them off?

 

[kylejack]

I don't like Paul's immigration policies. He should be talking about drastically increasing the quotas. But I guess you can't have it all, right?

 

[FreedomRings]

Yeah but she's talking about kids? ending birth right citzenship and shipping them off?

If they were 3 when they arrived in the US then they don't have birthright citizenship, that only applies to those that were born on US soil.

It's not these teens' fault that their parents broke the law, but if some illegal aliens would be considered less illegal than others and get preferential treatment, wouldn't that be pretty unfair? Where would you draw the line?

 

[Ncturnal]

If they were 3 when they arrived in the US then they don't have birthright citizenship, that only applies to those that were born on US soil.

It's not these teens' fault that their parents broke the law, but if some illegal aliens would be considered less illegal than others and get preferential treatment, wouldn't that be pretty unfair? Where would you draw the line?

I agree with you. We can't reward those over the ones who have taken the legal route. During the protests against illegal immigration I've seen many legal immigrants who took the proper steps for citizenship that were against amnesty.

 

[LizF]

You might like to check out some of RP's writings on the subject:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=5


Particularly pertinent ones, IMO:

--"Rethinking Birthright Citizenship"
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=480

--"Amnesty and the Welfare State"
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=478

--"The Immigration Question"
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=455

--"Immigration Reform in 2006?"
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=477

 

[Kapt Nemo]

Personally I agree with his no amnesty policy, simply because there are laws one must go through in order to become a US citizen. I know my family that came from Italy went through immigration in New York and followed the law to become citizens which gave their family members born here the birthright citizenship. I realize that it's not these kids fault that they are here illegally but if they're 18, they can go through the steps to become a full citizen and I'd be ok with that... however anyone that wants benefits without being a citizen can get right the hell out...

 

[thisisgiparti]

good article on immigration

and its' political implications. this is a huge issue for this election. it is very important for Ron Paul and his ability to re-brand the GOP.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119543645830297550.html?mod=hpp_us_editors_picks

 

[constituent]

...

 

[kylejack]

Personally I agree with his no amnesty policy, simply because there are laws one must go through in order to become a US citizen. I know my family that came from Italy went through immigration in New York and followed the law to become citizens which gave their family members born here the birthright citizenship. I realize that it's not these kids fault that they are here illegally but if they're 18, they can go through the steps to become a full citizen and I'd be ok with that... however anyone that wants benefits without being a citizen can get right the hell out...

Families from Italy can immigrate much more easily than families from Mexico. Citizens from Latin American countries are discriminated against, and about the only way to legally immigrate is if you have close family living in the United States or if you are in a highly skilled profession, like medicine. There is NO LEGAL PATH for the vast majority of immigrants from Mexico, Honduras, and etc.

 

[thisisgiparti]

I just want to add that the attitude of many voters that they want amnesty but no perks is naive, at best. Fining people and making them travel back and forth at their own expense for interviews, then denying their children education and denying them driver's licenses assures they will never assimilate.

I believe rewarding illegal immigration with amnesty is wrong. If a path to citizenship for illegals ever becomes an option, they should have sponsorship from their employers who should pay fines. That will likely never happen, but there you have the reality of the situation. The illegal immigrants have lived in the shadows, but they had it better than wherever they were from, or they wouldn't have come and stayed in the US. The corrupt businesses benefited from this exploitative practice most of all, and now you see our ugly corporate system. Our foreign policy encourages the destruction of all these developing nations' economies, and the pigeon always comes home to roost.

 

[kylejack]

I just want to add that the attitude of many voters that they want amnesty but no perks is naive, at best. Fining people and making them travel back and forth at their own expense for interviews, then denying their children education and denying them driver's licenses assures they will never assimilate.

I believe rewarding illegal immigration with amnesty is wrong. If a path to citizenship for illegals ever becomes an option, they should have sponsorship from their employers who should pay fines. That will likely never happen, but there you have the reality of the situation. The illegal immigrants have lived in the shadows, but they had it better than wherever they were from, or they wouldn't have come and stayed in the US. The corrupt businesses benefited from this exploitative practice most of all, and now you see our ugly corporate system. Our foreign policy encourages the destruction of all these developing nations' economies, and the pigeon always comes home to roost.

Third generations are generally fully assimilated. My ex girlfriend was third gen (her grandparents were illegal immigrants) and she was very Americanized. I knew more Spanish than her, and I'm white and nerdy.

 

[thisisgiparti]

also... (ha ha) if you could get over on the system that destroyed your homeland, would you? this is a different culture, and it seems the answer is yes. all their medical costs are covered, free education, birthright citizenship, etc.

many of these immigrants would have a harder time coming here legally, too. I am still opposed to amnesty. it is a slap in the face to the immigrants who go through the costly and time-consuming process of legitimate channels.

my husband is Canadian. he was in the US on a student visa and then a corporate visa. I live with him in Canada now , because of a bureaucratic snafu. he was deported after we had been married one year. then when the mistake was pointed out, the US government actually threatened him with lifelong banning. he was told to take his three years out of the US and deal with it.

I have heard other stories like this over the years. the system is frustrating for those who mean well and follow the rules, and I don't think it's any accident. someone must undoubtedly be getting rich off our government's ineptitude. for me, the biggest issue is restoring the rule of law to the land. too bad if that thwarts political agendas or hijacks someone's seat at the trough.

 

[ASayre]

My family came here legally, they learned the language, they applied for citizenship.

Why can't theirs?

 

[kylejack]

My family came here legally, they learned the language, they applied for citizenship.

Why can't theirs?

No legal path to citizenship for most from Latin America.

 

[literatim]

Families from Italy can immigrate much more easily than families from Mexico. Citizens from Latin American countries are discriminated against, and about the only way to legally immigrate is if you have close family living in the United States or if you are in a highly skilled profession, like medicine. There is NO LEGAL PATH for the vast majority of immigrants from Mexico, Honduras, and etc.

Why would we want a bunch of unskilled and uneducated people immigrating here?

 

[SKW322]

Families from Italy can immigrate much more easily than families from Mexico. Citizens from Latin American countries are discriminated against, and about the only way to legally immigrate is if you have close family living in the United States or if you are in a highly skilled profession, like medicine. There is NO LEGAL PATH for the vast majority of immigrants from Mexico, Honduras, and etc.

Your personal opinion simply does not match facts. The U.S accepts over a million LEGAL immigrants each year, and the vast majority of these come from Mexico, Central and South America. It is in fact easier to immigrate legally from Mexico than it is from Italy, if all other variables are held constant. However, most Mexican immigrants find that it is even easier to just cross the US border from Mexico and wait for amnesty, rather than to do the proper paperwork.

Notice below how immigration from Italy is so small as to be not even be listed.

"In 2006, a total of 1,266,264 immigrants became legal permanent residents of the United States, up from 601,516 in 1987, 849,807 in 2000, and 1,122,373 in 2005. The top twelve migrant-sending countries in 2006, by country of birth, were Mexico (173,753), People's Republic of China (87,345), Philippines (74,607), India (61,369), Cuba (45,614), Colombia (43,151), Dominican Republic (38,069), El Salvador (31,783), Vietnam (30,695), Jamaica (24,976), South Korea (24,386), Guatemala (24,146), Other countries - 606,370. In fiscal year 2006, 202 refugees from Iraq were allowed to resettle in the United States. Muslim immigration to the U.S. is rising and in 2005 alone more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent U.S. residents — nearly 96,000 — than in any year in the previous two decades."

"In 2006, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S."

 

[Original_Intent]

Yeah but she's talking about kids? ending birth right citzenship and shipping them off?

Google "anchor babies".

RP's philosophy is right - we don't need to ship them out, we need to remove the incentives that bring them here.

If they cannot get government benefits and cannot work, they will leave, there will be no need to round them up.

 

[SKW322]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2001-2005_imm_rate_US.PNG


The above shows the disproportionately high acceptance rate for legal immigrants from Mexico. Furthermore, I have several relatives who immigrated from Mexico and none had any troubles at all. They applied legally while still living in Mexico. Not like most who jump the border, and then are granted citizenship after having a child here. They agree that U.S. citizenship was a time-consuming process, but was much easier than they had ever expected.