Re: Ron Paul's "border fence" statement

[AlexMerced]

 

[WilliamC]

"Prevent invasion" sounds suspiciously like a euphemism for something less defensible to me.

Which is why I suggest you have a problem with definitions.

How is telling me whom I can and can't have on my own property one of the most basic functions of government?

I didn't realize that you owned all the property along the borders of the USA.

My bad.

/sarc.

And I'm still not clear on what's wrong with my earlier point. If the only thing that's wrong with illegal immigration is the fact that it's illegal, and immigration itself is not wrong, then wouldn't simply making it legal solve the problem?

Your lack of clarity is probably due to that problem with definitions.

Probably.

 

[erowe1]

I didn't realize that you owned all the property along the borders of the USA.

I don't. But I do own some property. And I asked you why you think it is a most basic function of the federal government to tell me whom I can and can't allow on my property? That is what you meant by "prevent invasion." Right?

If that is not what you meant, then perhaps whatever you meant by "prevent invasion" actually has nothing to do with immigration.

Immigration laws, after all, don't just have to do with crossing the border, but also with whether or not someone can be anywhere in the USA, including on my own property.

 

[Tod]

Making the border impermeable is not possible. Anyone who says they're for that might as well be for making us all immortal.

I think the key phrase in the quote you give is "her own." In other words, no supranational entity should exist that dictates to the USA what its immigration laws should be. Similarly, the American taxpayer should not be funding the guarding of the borders of Iraq.

I agree with your last sentence and find it consistent with Dr. Paul's statements on that issue.

So....what does "Enforce border security" mean then?

 

[erowe1]

I agree with your last sentence and find it consistent with Dr. Paul's statements on that issue.

So....what does "Enforce border security" mean then?

I'm not sure what kind of restrictions on border crossing Ron Paul would support. I know he doesn't support laws that tell American employers they can only hire people whom the government approves to be allowed to work here.

I assume that enforcing border security includes repelling military attacks.

 

[Tarzan]

I agree with your last sentence and find it consistent with Dr. Paul's statements on that issue.

So....what does "Enforce border security" mean then?

I would warn you about accepting the definitions of certain members on this forum. There is a wide range of opinion on this and other issues. Not all of them reflect that of Ron Paul. On this issue you see the Anarchist/Libertarian view that the borders should be open and anything goes. Go to the source whenever you have a question as to Ron Paul's stance on any given issue. They are well documented and easy to find:

 

[erowe1]

I would warn you about accepting the definitions of certain members on this forum. There is a wide range of opinion on this and other issues. Not all of them reflect that of Ron Paul. On this issue you see the Anarchist/Libertarian view that the borders should be open and anything goes. Go to the source whenever you have a question as to Ron Paul's stance on any given issue. They are well documented and easy to find:

+1

If you want to see a good synopsis of RP's positions on a variety of laws related to immigration, backed up by quotes and legislation, check out NumbersUSA.
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/ron-paul.html

 

[Tod]

How does one confirm that a welfare recipient is or is not a US citizen?

In the above video (thanks, Tarzan) Paul indicates that these benefits should be denied illegals (and goes on to say that he would like to get rid of gov't welfare altogether although gave me the impression that complete abandonment of welfare would be something that would come later)

Also in the above video, I got the impression that illegals AREN'T much of a concern to Dr. Paul despite his campaign site's statement. Kind of mixed messages, imo.

 

[erowe1]

How does one confirm that a welfare recipient is or is not a US citizen?

By requiring them to prove their citizenship before giving them welfare.

What statement does RP make on his website that indicates that "illegals" are much of a concern to him?

 

[WilliamC]

I don't. But I do own some property. And I asked you why you think it is a most basic function of the federal government to tell me whom I can and can't allow on my property? That is what you meant by "prevent invasion." Right?

If that is not what you meant, then perhaps whatever you meant by "prevent invasion" actually has nothing to do with immigration.

Immigration laws, after all, don't just have to do with crossing the border, but also with whether or not someone can be anywhere in the USA, including on my own property.

I see you also have a problem recognizing sarcasm, even when denoted by /sarc.

You really have problems communicating with others, but at least you are willing to keep trying.

 

[low preference guy]

I see you also have a problem recognizing sarcasm, even when denoted by /sarc.

You really have problems communicating with others, but at least you are willing to keep trying.

Ironic statement considering that you refuse to answer his question. Why should the government interfere with who he allows in his property?

 

[WilliamC]

Ironic statement considering that you refuse to answer his question. Why should the government interfere with who he allows in his property?

Well he just admitted he doesn't own all the property in the USA which borders other countries, so his property must be reached by crossing a political border if a visitor is coming from outside the geographic area of the USA.

I accept that a legitimate function of the US Federal Government is to regulate non-citizens entry into it's territory, which means identifying those who wish to either visit or live here and giving or refusing permission to specific individuals to do so.

Just like I'd expect and understand that any other foreign government to have the authority to regulate my coming into their country.

If I decide to enter another country without the consent of that countries government then I'd best be prepared to accept the consenquences if I'm caught.

Now if one is a complete anarchist and doesn't believe in any governmental authority then I agree that the entire idea of borders and such is wrong, but I'm not an anarchist.

 

[low preference guy]

Well he just admitted he doesn't own all the property in the USA which borders other countries, so his property must be reached by crossing a political border if a visitor is coming from outside the geographic area of the USA.

If he owns a small airport next to his house, should the government prevent a visitor to land there? If so, why?

 

[WilliamC]

If he owns a small airport next to his house, should the government prevent a visitor to land there? If so, why?

Again unless you are an anarchist and don't believe any government should exist, then yes the Federal Government has the proper authority to try and regulate who comes into and out of the country. That's one of the legitimate functions of governments, and according to the US Constitution the Federal Governments authority superceeds the States in regards to dealing with foreigners.

The Federal Government has the authority to control who comes into and out of US airspace as part of protecting the border, so yes, they can prevent said visitor from landing as part of them preventing them from entering US airspace.

 

[erowe1]

WilliamC, I haven't said anything against the federal government regulating who enters the country. But once someone gets to my property, then any issue of them crossing the border is moot. However they got here, they're here. Does the government have the right to say whom I'm allowed to welcome onto my own property? Or, to get more specific, if I want to hire someone to do some work for me, and that person and I agree for them to do certain work in exchange for me giving them a certain amount of money, does the government have a right to tell me that I need to get some kind of verification that that person has their permission to be in the country before I can make that agreement?

 

[Tod]

What statement does RP make on his website that indicates that "illegals" are much of a concern to him?

His campaign website lists "Enforce border security" under the Immigration issue rather than the National Defense issue.

 

[erowe1]

His campaign website lists "Enforce border security" under the Immigration issue rather than the National Defense issue.

OK. But how does a person jump from that fact to him somehow being concerned about "illegals"?

 

[Tod]

OK. But how does a person jump from that fact to him somehow being concerned about "illegals"?

Ummm...not sure how to respond to that. What other conclusion would one draw?

 

[erowe1]

Ummm...not sure how to respond to that. What other conclusion would one draw?

I'm looking at his immigration page now, and the quote I think you're talking about is this:

America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

Why is it necessary to read between the lines and think this means he's really concerned about "illegals"?

 

[sailingaway]

Ron voted for the fence, but he sees these 'protections' being used in invasion of American's rights across the board. In Texas the fence would fence off the Rio Grande. We fought a war for that river. Ranches along that river use it to water stock and irrigate. They'd have to pay for special gates and have mini cattle drives with oversight by the government multiple times a day to water cattle, and similar every time they needed to adjust irrigation. Forget docks and water use. We'd be fencing off our productive use of the Rio Grande. If you lived on the Mississippi how would you feel about having your docks fenced off?

But Ron did vote for it to get other things in that bill. He just is against the idea, as a choice.

Unlike some above, Ron does believe a sovereign nation has the right to say who can, and cannot come in. But he doesn't like the fence. Troops you can use at need and remove. And he'd provide for that, by bringing troops overseas home.