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

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Original Poster

Ron Paul supports a guest worker program. However, he does not support a path to citizenship unlike everyone else.

If we provide a path to citizenship for the millions of illegals this country is finished. I strongly support Dr. Paul's no amnesty position. Keep in mind non-whites aren't traditionally conservative and are prone to poverty. They are also of a different race which creates annoying separatism.

I support anyone that wants to come into our country to make it a better place, but living in Arizona I have had a first hand look at what illegal immigration does.

Thats noble but we have to preserve our race. Whites are quickly becoming an ethnic minority in the country we founded. The elites are pushing integration on us so we can live in their utopian New World Order. They are working to destroy European Christian America. Its getting way out of hand. I dont mind a few but now they are everywhere. I see less and less white faces. Its so unbearable for me to imagine my beautiful white blue eyed daughter in a sea of Arabs, Mexicans, Asians and Blacks.

However, this is not meant to be offensive to non-European Ron Paul supporters. Its just we can't just allow the US to become some multiracial country where whites are a minority. Enough is enough. There needs to be a limit. We are starting to resemble some depressing third world melting pot.

 

[Kade]

That sounds pretty European to me...

Anyway, I think you have a lot of un-brainwashing to do, so I'll keep this short: wanting to preserve your own heritage (as our Founding Fathers intended) has nothing to do with oppressing or "offending" others.

Israel is a Jewish state. Ghana is black. Japan is Japanese. The native European descendants are rapidly becoming a minority here (and nearly every other white country) because of disastrous immigration policies and brainwashed egalitarians such as yourself (no offense).

I think the Thomas Jefferson in your sig line would agree with me here.

Un-brainwashing? You think heritage matters? Who is the brainwashed one.

Heritage will matter when we can no longer breed with each other. Garbage in, garbage out my friend. Take a course in evolutionary psychology.

Note: Constantly invoking the "founding fathers" in topics ranging from eugenics to bloodletting, to gun ownership, immigration, and abortion is useless. What you need to understand is the words "secular progressive", because the founders were RADICAL. (and I love em for it.)

 

[rockwell]

Let's say those kids grew up in a house that was bought and furnished with the proceeds from a bank robbery. Would you say "but they live there now" by way of defense?

It is too bad and it is a shame, but the parents made that decision and it is the parents fault for implicating their children in their crimes and making them vicitms of their criminal behavior. Maybe it will serve as a lesson- maybe the advantages they had growing up in America will eneable them to bring needed reforms to their native country, maybe it will teach them that criminal behavior hurts everyone associated with the one who commits those acts.

While it may be emotional to see it as you've presented it, it is alos an issue of all the other people who have had money stolen from their paycheck to subsidize entitlements to which they had no claim, for overcrowding the schools and using the natural resources which rightfully belong to Americans.

Either you believe in the Constitution or you do not, you are law abiding or you are a criminal. It isn't the responsibility of the law abiding citizen to subsidize the poulation of planet earth simply because they crossed a border unchecked.

 

[jmdrake]

That sounds pretty European to me...

Anyway, I think you have a lot of un-brainwashing to do, so I'll keep this short: wanting to preserve your own heritage (as our Founding Fathers intended) has nothing to do with oppressing or "offending" others.

Israel is a Jewish state. Ghana is black. Japan is Japanese. The native European descendants are rapidly becoming a minority here (and nearly every other white country) because of disastrous immigration policies and brainwashed egalitarians such as yourself (no offense).

I think the Thomas Jefferson in your sig line would agree with me here.

A) Why don't you dig up Thomas Jefferson and ask him?
B) When Thomas Jefferson was alive white people were a minority. (More Native Americans here than white folks).
C) Had the Native Americans had a sensible immigration policy.....

That said I am TOTALLY against amnesty. And I can't believe all of the people who seem to think there is "no legal way" for Latin Americans to immigrate. WHERE DO SOME OF YOU GET SUCH A NUTTY IDEA? Or in the words of Ed and Elaine Brown "show me the law". Yes show me the law that says people from Mexico can't immigrate here legally. I know for a FACT that this isn't true. I personally know LEGAL immigrants from Mexico and some of you are greatly insulting them with your false claims about there being no legal method for immigration from that country.

Now, the corrupt Mexican government does make it more difficult to legally immigrate because they overcharge for exit visas but that is NOT the fault of the U.S.!

And finally, why is this becoming an issue all of a sudden? Illegal immigration has been around for a long time. So why all of a sudden this push for "amnesty" as if it were the most pressing need on the planet? Could it be the push for a North American Union? I know some of you don't want to face the "conspiracy theories" but this one is undeniable. Ron Paul has spoken about it. Former Mexican president Vicente Fox admitted it on Larry King live (including the plans for doing away with the dollar and replacing it with the "Amero"). Once you factor this into the equation the immigration issue becomes a no brainer. It's not about keeping "undesireables" out. It's about preventing the necessary conditions for totally destroying America from taking place.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[kry0nik]

This whole debate is ridiculous. I think we can agree that criminals from any country including mexico are bad. We should be able to immediately weed those people out and never let them come here. For that I am all for good agents and fences and technology to secure the border. However, a crackdown on criminals can be done without treating everyone trying to come to this country or those here who overstayed their visa as a threat to national security. Our system is horrible. Not a single person that has become a citizen can sing praises of how our system worked quick, fast and fairly. You don't know how messed up the system is until it messes with you or your family. I count myself as one of those unfortunate ones who knows all to well. I am American by birth but have family that have been treated unfairly by our immigration system. We have the potential to be a better nation than we are being at this point in regards to visitors, guests and those wanting to be Americans.

Secondly, if anyone can come here and contribute, then by all means let them. If we get rid of welfare, the numbers of immigrants will never grow to an unmanageable number simply because they either work or go home.

Thirdly, our immigration policy should allow any decent person who wants to visit here to come. Wanting to come or coming to this country should not be a crime, period. Passing yourself off as a citizen or taking benefits intended for citizens is fraud, period. Learning English should be a requirement for citizenship because it is the language of success. And those who immigrate here need to speak the language to be most successful in this country.

What should concern everyone is that our government is now enforcing immigration zero tolerance policies at the border with permission to deny American citizens their constitutional rights on OUR SOIL!

 

[rockwell]

A) Why don't you dig up Thomas Jefferson and ask him?
B) When Thomas Jefferson was alive white people were a minority. (More Native Americans here than white folks).
C) Had the Native Americans had a sensible immigration policy.....

Classic John Drake argument.

Did the colonist come here and take the Native American system over or did they bring their own with them?

Do not make the mistake of thinking I am unaware of our past- the genocide of Amerinds was the greatest single crime in human history and we have yet to acknowledge or atone for it, it's like some collective duplicity we've all agreed upon and it happened right here. There's no way we are ever going to get out from under that dark cloud unless we do and though I am no believer in karma, that act alone makes me wonder.

 

[jmdrake]

A) Why don't you dig up Thomas Jefferson and ask him?
B) When Thomas Jefferson was alive white people were a minority. (More Native Americans here than white folks).
C) Had the Native Americans had a sensible immigration policy.....

Classic John Drake argument.

Did the colonist come here and take the Native American system over or did they bring their own with them?

Do not make the mistake of thinking I am unaware of our past- the genocide of Amerinds was the greatest single crime in human history and we have yet to acknowledge or atone for it, it's like some collective duplicity we've all agreed upon and it happened right here. There's no way we are ever going to get out from under that dark cloud unless we do and though I am no believer in karma, that act alone makes me wonder.

Rockwell...just curious. Did you read the rest of my post where I clearly spoke out AGAINST amnesty?

As for "taking over the Native American system" versus "bringing their own" and then committing genocide (which you agree was a bad thing) there are a few other points you should consider.

1) The effect of the Cherokee confederacy on the thinking of the founding fathers.
2) The help the Native Americans gave the early settlers in terms of understanding North American agriculture.
3) Don't think that SOME of the people looking to establish the NAU haven't considered genocide. Google plan of San Diego if you haven't already. (Somehow I doubt you haven't already heard of this.

Anyway neither of us support amnesty. Both of us (I think) support defending our borders. I'm just (apparently) working from a different set of motivations. Stopping the NAU is my main concern as opposed to protecting a particular racial balance. If a bunch of Eastern Europeans were trying to merge us with the European Union I'd have a problem with that also.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[rockwell]

Rockwell...just curious. Did you read the rest of my post where I clearly spoke out AGAINST amnesty?

As for "taking over the Native American system" versus "bringing their own" and then committing genocide (which you agree was a bad thing) there are a few other points you should consider.

1) The effect of the Cherokee confederacy on the thinking of the founding fathers.
2) The help the Native Americans gave the early settlers in terms of understanding North American agriculture.
3) Don't think that SOME of the people looking to establish the NAU haven't considered genocide. Google plan of San Diego if you haven't already. (Somehow I doubt you haven't already heard of this.

Anyway neither of us support amnesty. Both of us (I think) support defending our borders. I'm just (apparently) working from a different set of motivations. Stopping the NAU is my main concern as opposed to protecting a particular racial balance. If a bunch of Eastern Europeans were trying to merge us with the European Union I'd have a problem with that also.

Regards,

John M. Drake

John, you seem like a very nice guy and I bet you and I would really get along, in fact there are a lot of things we agree on, but you have to check your facts. It wasn't the Cherokee Confederacy that they modeled the Federal system on, it was the Iroquois Confederacy- ironically a homogenous Nation made up of five tribal groups, all of whom shared the same linguistic, cultural and geographic sphere. Franklin was pretty keen on it and though he had a generally low opinion of the people, he did admire their ability to unite politically- and incidentally, when Independence Hall was built it was oriented in the same way as the Long House on purpose. Just a little trivia.

FWIW I am extremely well versed on Amerind culture and understand that the colonist owed their lives to the intercession of the original inhabitants, but they didn't introduce them to agriculture, only the uses and traits of indiginous species. Europeans had practiced agriculture for more than two millenium before arriving in the New World, it's just that some of the first arrivals weren't farmers but religious and political exiles with trades that simply weren't applicable to colonization.

And I would reject a union with Europe as well, I like the USA along the original lines, but I doubt seriously that anything short of a war will change the fact that a huge swath of the southwest is lost to us, culturally, historically, linguistically and as a functioning part of our nation. I also propose that we cede Hawai'i to the original inhabitants for the same reasons- it isn't really a part of the US except as a strategic possession and what we've done to the original inhabitants is just as bad as what we did to the Amerinds, luckily they have managed to hold on to enough of their original culture to make a comeback if left alone. Of course China would probably sieze it militarily, or Japan simply colonize it- which it has for all intents and purposes.

Since we're both backing the same guy and since we both obviously think along similar lines about the general Constitutional principles, let's try not to spar so much, it isn't helping the greater good in this case- not to be a collectivist or anything- and I think it's counterproductive, especially since most of the people who post here aren't all that concerned about these issues.

Okay?

 

[jmdrake]

John, you seem like a very nice guy and I bet you and I would really get along, in fact there are a lot of things we agree on, but you have to check your facts. It wasn't the Cherokee Confederacy that they modeled the Federal system on, it was the Iroquois Confederacy- ironically a homogenous Nation made up of five tribal groups, all of whom shared the same linguistic, cultural and geographic sphere. Franklin was pretty keen on it and though he had a generally low opinion of the people, he did admire their ability to unite politically- and incidentally, when Independence Hall was built it was oriented in the same way as the Long House on purpose. Just a little trivia.

Fine. I got my confederacies mixed up. Anyhow I'd have thought you'd like the Cherokees better since they backed the south in the civil war. []

FWIW I am extremely well versed on Amerind culture and understand that the colonist owed their lives to the intercession of the original inhabitants, but they didn't introduce them to agriculture, only the uses and traits of indiginous species.

Ummm....that's what I meant when I said NORTH AMERICAN agriculture. Maybe I needed to spell that out more?

And I would reject a union with Europe as well, I like the USA along the original lines, but I doubt seriously that anything short of a war will change the fact that a huge swath of the southwest is lost to us, culturally, historically, linguistically and as a functioning part of our nation. I also propose that we cede Hawai'i to the original inhabitants for the same reasons- it isn't really a part of the US except as a strategic possession and what we've done to the original inhabitants is just as bad as what we did to the Amerinds, luckily they have managed to hold on to enough of their original culture to make a comeback if left alone. Of course China would probably sieze it militarily, or Japan simply colonize it- which it has for all intents and purposes.

I wouldn't give up on the southwest just yet. There still seems to be strong resistance in Texas to the whole NAFTA superhighway thing. Hadn't made up my mind about Hawaii.

Since we're both backing the same guy and since we both obviously think along similar lines about the general Constitutional principles, let's try not to spar so much, it isn't helping the greater good in this case- not to be a collectivist or anything- and I think it's counterproductive, especially since most of the people who post here aren't all that concerned about these issues.

Okay?

Cool. Truce.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[integrity]

My main problem with the illegal aliens is they are being used as a tool of the elites to destroy our middle class.

We are also enabling Mexico to further its oppression by providing a relief valve.
Mexico should be having a revolution by now if it wasn't for the U.S. providing the easy way out for the discontented masses. I don't blame mexicans for leaving their country. I don't blame U.S. citizens for resenting the illegals.

I blame the U.S. Neocons and the Elitists.

watch this movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igG4VJtEi5o

 

[lucius]

My main problem with the illegal aliens is they are being used as a tool of the elites to destroy our middle class.

We are also enabling Mexico to further its oppression by providing a relief valve.
Mexico should be having a revolution by now if it wasn't for the U.S. providing the easy way out for the discontented masses. I don't blame mexicans for leaving their country. I don't blame U.S. citizens for resenting the illegals.

I blame the U.S. Neocons and the Elitists.

watch this movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igG4VJtEi5o

Very well put and appropriate video as well....welcome!

 

[Sir VotesALot]

A) Why don't you dig up Thomas Jefferson and ask him?
B) When Thomas Jefferson was alive white people were a minority. (More Native Americans here than white folks).
C) Had the Native Americans had a sensible immigration policy.....

Jefferson wrote in his autobiography that blacks and whites could not live together under the same government (as free men) so I'm pretty certain of what his stance would be on the whole Mexican issue.

And as far as the the Native Americans are concerned, fortunately there was no political correctness back then so they were allowed to defend their own territory. And if diversity is so great why didn't they welcome the European with open arms? Something to think about.

 

[huchahucha]

As with all of RP's stances, you have to look at the big picture. Where one stance might seem harsh or extreme, it is usually offset by another one that softens the blow and actually makes since. In this case I would argue the offsetting stance is free markets. Using Mexico as an example - if the Mexican government and the U.S. government would butt out, and let their businesses sell products here and let ours sell products there with minimal regulation, eventually Mexico's economy would start to flourish and their average wages would go up. There would be no reason to come here and work.

 

[Thomas Paine]

I'm hispanic and was born in Michigan. Parents immigrated legally from South America in 1960. My family followed the immigration laws existing in the 1960s. That said, immigrations laws have tightened substantially since the early 20th century and INS is just a bureaucratic nightmare that can take years (a couple of decades for someone in Michigan) to navigate.

 

[rodent]

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.

I'm trying to understand why you want to import an underclass with clear poverty and education issues when the American working class is about to endure a major recession and/or depression?

 

[gregk]

As far as I can see, this is probably the most flawed of all of RPs positions since it is completely inconsistent with his views on limited government.

How can you have such an extreme 'lockdown' against immigration with a limited government?

Also, you have to look at it from both directions: if Big Brother can lock 'them' out, it is also locking us in - that really scares me now. I'm afraid to fly for fear of Homeland Security sending me off to a 12x12 cell in Syria or somewhere.

I imagine RP would abolish Homeland Security in name, but how exactly would he be securing the borders and deporting people: "your papers please!"

I hope RP comes to see the light on this one.
I am still inspired by him - everyone makes mistakes.

 

[nickcoons]

How can you have such an extreme 'lockdown' against immigration with a limited government?

Also, you have to look at it from both directions: if Big Brother can lock 'them' out, it is also locking us in - that really scares me now. I'm afraid to fly for fear of Homeland Security sending me off to a 12x12 cell in Syria or somewhere.

I imagine RP would abolish Homeland Security in name, but how exactly would he be securing the borders and deporting people: "your papers please!"

I don't think his position is flawed here. Please see my post #21 in this thread.

In addition, I don't agree that locking people out is the two-way "lockdown" that you describe, unless you build a glass dome around the country. There is nothing wrong with having border patrol agents along the border making sure people only enter following our rules, and those same agents could do nothing when it comes to people leaving. So I don't see how we'd be locked in.

You ask how he would be deporting people. I don't think he has any intention of going around and "rounding up" all of the illegals. That would be a huge infringement on our rights, because you're right, they'd have to ask everyone for their papers, and I don't see him doing that. I think it's more passive than that. If someone is arrested for a crime, perhaps a quick background check can reveal their legal status, I don't really know.

But the real issue here is getting rid of the federal mandates on the states to provide social services to everyone, even illegals. If everyone, including illegals, have to fend for themselves without government handouts, then only those willing to fend for themselves will come here. I don't have an issue with hard-working immigrants.

 

[Jimmy]

I'm hispanic and was born in Michigan. Parents immigrated legally from South America in 1960. My family followed the immigration laws existing in the 1960s. That said, immigrations laws have tightened substantially since the early 20th century and INS is just a bureaucratic nightmare that can take years (a couple of decades for someone in Michigan) to navigate.

Blame the CRIMINALS that come into this country illegally!!!

 

[Unspun]

The problem with amnesty is not about whether we should allow people to come to this country or not. We should, undoubtably. We have a strong tradition of accepting everyone and anyone within reason of the law. Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution does give Congress the right to regulate Normalization. The problem with amnesty is the cost of allowing people to come to this great nation and use taxpayers dollars that politicians set up to buy votes with welfare of one sort or another, whether it be via Social Security, schooling for children, Medicare, et cetera.

I do not want to deny any of these to anyone that wants to come here and contribute to our beautiful nation. That would oppose everything we stand for, we welcome every race and creed of the world as long as they live by the laws of the land and respect others. This however becomes a problems when there is too many people to support, so we create laws and methods of becoming a citizen. Sometimes the rules are conveluted and draconian. What really needs to be reformed is what attracts the wrong type of people interested in gaining citizenship and get our own workers to fill those jobs which we 'do not want to do' by making them or they lose their roof over their head. It would be of little surprise to me if the safety net was taken out from under them it would force them to build their own net to catch them before they hit ground zero, with the help of those around them of course.

If we took away these costly welfare programs we could expect the security and productivity of the nation go up exponentially. People would be filling jobs, less and less of those coming over the borders to get our jobs would have less jobs to come over for, they themselves would no longer have access to welfare if the welfare state didn't exist. This would solve that problem, and at worst, we'd be forced to take care of our own contributing in-need citizens rather than those that are looking for handouts.

Another problem I see is minimum wage. I hear people talk about not being able to compete with illegals. I ask them why? Because the jobs that Illegals are being hired for are often under minimum wage. If a law abiding citizen was willing to work under minimum wage, they couldn't. It is against the law. Throw out minimum wage all toghether and you get rid fo the excuse of 'not being able to compete with illegals.'

Finally, the Drug War is a failure and is largely contributing to the immigration problem, along with drug related violence over gang territory, et cetera. Make drugs illegal and smugglers have no reason to cross the borders. The violence created by this problem can be simply to legalize, if the business men that are selling these drugs they have no reason to protect themselves with violence. They are forced to either get out of the business or start acting like businessmen. Do businessmen shoot people over selling drugs on 'their territory'? If they have it's a very rare case in which they do.

Why aren't any of my suggestions being enacted? Who knows, could be the political areana we do our politics in is so stiffled with dodgy politicians and an overabundance of corporate lobbyists who can do nothing but benefit from the way things are going now that they block any type of logical thinking that goes on on the floor, with the exception of Ron Paul and a few great statesmen, of course. The answers are simple, the path to making them a reality is what is filled with such corruption and beaucracy that it makes it unrealistic for any type of positive change. Hopefully with the election of Ron Paul, this type of dream will become reality.

 

[Arek]

I feel children brought here against their will, should probably file for legal immigration status and then citizenship. They usually get a stay on being deported if they file for documented status. But if they refuse to file, which many don't think they should have too, then if they get deported I feel it would be their own fault.