If Immigration is your Primary Concern, Why Vote for Paul?

[LibertyEagle]

You didn't address RevolutionSD's point that enforcing borders through violence is contrary to the concept of liberty. Just saying that "Thomas Jefferson said so" is not an argument for the liberty-ness of a statement.

You also didn't answer the original question.

"If Immigration is your Primary Concern, Why Vote for Paul?"

Because you're wrong about Ron Paul's stance, that's why.

To my understanding, Ron believes we should enforce our immigration laws and defend our borders.

I realize you would like to change him into what you believe, but...

 

[pcosmar]

Then you haven't read our immigration laws.

Say what??
I know a lot of Legal immigrants that are quite pissed abut Illegal immigration and amnesty.
There are many that immigrate legally every year. But there are millions with no respect for our laws that come illegally. Is that fair to those that respect our laws?

 

[specsaregood]

You mentioned both, so did you intend to say that he wants to enforce the borders for national security issues AND economic issues (due to our current welfare state)?

Well i think the answer is one of philosophy vs. reality.

My understanding:
1. He wants to always enforce the borders for national security reasons. This would not change no matter our economic issue. Enforce does not necessarily mean stop all immigration (free movement of peoples) it just means that anything coming over would be inspected for national security reasons.
2. As long as we have a welfare and incentive system that subsidizes illegal workers, he wants to protect the border to keep them from coming over -- for economic reasons. If he was able to end those incentives, he would not stop the free-movement of people/workers as long as they were not a national security threat....

 

[Jace]

...

 

[torchbearer]

Well i think the answer is one of philosophy vs. reality.

My understanding:
1. He wants to always enforce the borders for national security reasons. This would not change no matter our economic issue. Enforce does not necessarily mean stop all immigration (free movement of peoples) it just means that anything coming over would be inspected for national security reasons.
2. As long as we have a welfare and incentive system that subsidizes illegal workers, he wants to protect the border to keep them from coming over -- for economic reasons. If he was able to end those incentives, he would not stop the free-movement of people/workers as long as they were not a national security threat....

You basically have it right.
If we didn't have a welfare state subsidizing poverty and we didn't have the warfare state creating enemies, he'd want open borders.
Until then, we must protect them. It is only logical.

 

[acptulsa]

You didn't address RevolutionSD's point that enforcing borders through violence is contrary to the concept of liberty. Just saying that "Thomas Jefferson said so" is not an argument for the liberty-ness of a statement.

You also didn't answer the original question.

She has to answer every question ever posed just to open her mouth? And how many times do you need the original question answered? If you're walking through a scrapyard and don't want to be attacked by the merchandise, take the damned magnets out of your pockets! How hard is that?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Well i think the answer is one of philosophy vs. reality.

My understanding:
1. He wants to always enforce the borders for national security reasons. This would not change no matter our economic issue. Enforce does not necessarily mean stop all immigration (free movement of peoples) it just means that anything coming over would be inspected for national security reasons.

No one said he was against legal immigration. Emphasis on LEGAL.

2. As long as we have a welfare and incentive system that subsidizes illegal workers, he wants to protect the border to keep them from coming over -- for economic reasons. If he was able to end those incentives, he would not stop the free-movement of people/workers as long as they were not a national security threat....

If it is just to work, I think you're right. He believes in having work programs, but, he would not make everyone that crossed the border, citizens. He's a strong advocate of national sovereignty and is against amnesty.

 

[Catatonic]

No one held a candle to Dr. Paul on the immigration issue.

What planet are you on?

 

[specsaregood]

but, he would not make everyone that crossed the border, citizens.

Or course I don't think I ever said that he would make everyone that crossed a citizen. I don't think we are in disagreement here.

RP had the best stance on the illegal immigration issue, simple.

 

[cheapseats]

...Ron Paul is right on everything.

A different Messiah?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Or course I don't think I ever said that he would make everyone that crossed a citizen. I don't think we are in disagreement here.

RP had the best stance on the illegal immigration issue, simple.

Yeah, I don't think we are either, specs. The thing is, people have different definitions of things. So, I wanted to be as specific as possible, for anyone else reading this stuff.

 

[Minuteman2008]

An absolutist position on libertarianism is utopian fantasy. You would have half the world's population coming here if you allowed it....

We are already at a point where the third world immigrant voting bloc will soon make it impossible for Obama and a leftist Congress to ever be dislodged now....

And this is precisely what amazes me about the libertarians who refuse to step out of their theoretical bubble. With massive immigration from the third world, any supposed liberty movement will be washed away in a tide of voters seeking more handouts from their government. Reducing the size and scope of government will quickly become impossible. Real life doesn't always conform to ideology, and it's incredible that some people can't see that.

 

[Feenix566]

And this is precisely what amazes me about the libertarians who refuse to step out of their theoretical bubble. With massive immigration from the third world, any supposed liberty movement will be washed away in a tide of voters seeking more handouts from their government. Reducing the size and scope of government will quickly become impossible. Real life doesn't always conform to ideology, and it's incredible that some people can't see that.

That's only true if you have a purely democratic system, which inevitably devolves into two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. We believe in a constitutionally limited government. The welfare state is prohibited by the Constituion.

Besides, I don't compromise my principles in favor of what is politically expedient.


But anyway, getting back on topic, why not vote for Tancredo?

 

[hugolp]

You're right. I'm lying to promote Romney. Damnit, the jig is up! I've been here all this time just trying to establish a reputation so that when I finally revealed that I think Romney is the greatest, you'll all listen to me and switch to Romney supporters. How did you figure me out? Guess I better go report failure to my NWO masters. They don't take these things well. I better wear a kevlar vest when I do it.

Hey, nice try. A bit over the top, but nice try. You did not answer to the videos where Ron Paul is saying exactly the oposite of what you say he says.

 

[specsaregood]

But anyway, getting back on topic, why not vote for Tancredo?

Sure if illegal immigration is your only issue then voting for Tancredo would be the logical choice. If on the otherhand you want to take other issues into account, he pales in comparison to RP.

 

[cheapseats]

Clear as mud.

From reading this thread, not only am I unclear as to Ron Paul's stance on immigration and nationalism, I am unmotivated to seek clarification. To my way of thinking, anyone who's been in Congress for THREE DECADES is part of the problem.

Yeah yeah, I know I know, people are only just now starting to HEAR him. That means his voice doesn't carry. His presence isn't a Presence. I know that's not a popular sentiment, but that's where I stand. Whether a person disagrees with me on some things or on everything, or whether they "merely" can't stand the WAY I say what I say, I AM forthright and steadfast. Now that y'all have had a taste of CHRONIC LYING, you know HAVE to know that counts for something. Dealing with Liars is like chasing mercury.

It's crunch time, People.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Instead of arguing over what we think another thinks, how 'bout everyone declares where they stand.

Me, I say Abortion is off the table. Me, I've read the Bible cover-to-cover twice, the second time with footnotes -- yeah yeah, I know I know, which version...I rest my case -- and that good book says that we are ACCOUNTABLE for every human life. Women/couples who have abortions will meet the Maker, same as everyone else. Each of us will one day own their own decisions before God.

Who can set this hot-button issue aside, PUT IT OUT OF YOUR MINDS THE SAME WAY YOU PUT FIVE OR SO THOUSAND AMERICAN AND UNCOUNTED IRAQI AND AFGHANI DEAD OUT OF YOUR MINDS. Election after election, you see some of the SLIMIEST people on earth troop this tear-jerker out and PROMPTLY, like Pavlov's dogs, we disintegrate into Hatfields and McCoys.

Abortion has NO BUSINESS BUT BUSINESS in the public arena. HAVING a position on Abortion, other than IT'S BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE UNIVERSE, is antithetical to Libertarianism and Republicanism alike. Morality CANNOT be legislated.

It would be wonderful if the people who are so bent out of shape about Abortion (which, like mayhem in the Middle East, has been occurring SINCE THE DAWN OF MAN) that they would tear this country asunder over it would, instead, charter airbuses to the Middle East and act as human shields for pregnant Iraqi and Afghani women. It couldn't NOT have a blessedly mitigating impact on regional violence.

Who wants open borders and who wants national sovereignty? They are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED. Where do People stand? Who are MY people? Free movement of labor = No national sovereignty. It's a one-or-the-other proposition.

I stand with national sovereignty, if we're standing. If y'all are kneeling, if there will no America as an identifiable compilation of principles and attributes, then I'm gonna high-tail it and burrow into the safest, most interesting deal I can forge for myself.

We'll get 'em in oh-ten, we'll get 'em in 2012. If Rand Paul can't do it, maybe Ron Paul's GRANDSON can git 'er done. Fiddle de dee. Put up or shut up, sayeth I.

Seize the moment.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Gamble big, win big.

He who hesitates is lost.

The early bird catches the worm.

Today is the first day of the rest of your life.

Just say NO.

Go for it.

Yeah yeah, I know I know, there are just as many platitudes, cliches and proverbs that speak to patience and kindliness. But I defy anyone to present Peaceable Means that have not already been conscientiously employed and casually-but-forcibly rejected.

 

[Minuteman2008]

That's only true if you have a purely democratic system, which inevitably devolves into two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. We believe in a constitutionally limited government. The welfare state is prohibited by the Constituion.

Besides, I don't compromise my principles in favor of what is politically expedient.


But anyway, getting back on topic, why not vote for Tancredo?

You can believe in anything you want, but that won't stop the negative consequences of massive third world immigration. But hey, all this is theoretical, so why should we make decisions based on what happens here in the real world?

Tancredo? Most people didn't get a chance to vote for him since he pulled out so early to help stump for Romney.

Also, despite a lot of libertarians' attempts to remake Paul's stance on immigration into something resembling their own open borders insanity, he's written several articles on the subject that are sensible and firmly grounded in reality.

But really, why try to weed out the realist conservatives from the libertarians? This whole movement is small enough as it is. If you got rid of all the folks who considered Paul's immigration views at least somewhat important, you'd have a pretty tiny group of people. Ron Paul was a member of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus and for the most part has been sensible on that subject (to conservatives). Just accept it and move on, I guess.

 

[Feenix566]

Hey, nice try. A bit over the top, but nice try. You did not answer to the videos where Ron Paul is saying exactly the oposite of what you say he says.

I can't access youtube from work. But please remind me, what did I say Ron Paul's position on immigration is?

 

[Standing Like A Rock]

Ron Paul did touch on the immigration issue and was stonger--much stronger--than Romney or McCain. Romney was a complete fraud on the immigration issue.

Immigration is my major concern and I supported Paul for the above reason but also because I felt he would be less vulnerable to being manipulated and controlled by the establishment Republicans, who largely are open borders enthusiasts, once he got in office.

Of course, immigration is not the only issue I care about and I had plenty of other reasons for supporting Ron from the beginning.

Welcome to RPF!

 

[Feenix566]

But really, why try to weed out the realist conservatives from the libertarians?

I'm not trying to weed anyone out, just trying to understand you. Priority number one is to get rid of the welfare / warfare state. It's a parasitic cancer on our society. Anyone who agrees that it's time to return to an economy based on earnings, not handouts, has more in common with me than different.

The question was really just a curiosity, that's all.