Re: Ron Paul's "border fence" statement

[WilliamC]

WilliamC, I haven't said anything against the federal government regulating who enters the country.

Then we have no argument.

I'm not advocating the government regulate your interactions with other individuals.

 

[Tod]

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


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

It really doesn't seem to me that I'm reading between the lines when his web site places border security under immigration. Again, what other conclusion would a person draw?

 

[erowe1]

It really doesn't seem to me that I'm reading between the lines when his web site places border security under immigration. Again, what other conclusion would a person draw?

Maybe I'm missing something. Tell me again exactly what the conclusion is that you draw?

 

[Johnny Appleseed]

If you want to live in a state of anarchy move to mexico

 

[erowe1]

If you want to live in a state of anarchy move to mexico

Why is it that people always bring up anarchy when this issue comes up?

 

[Tod]

Maybe I'm missing something. Tell me again exactly what the conclusion is that you draw?

So......just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?

His official campaign site says: "Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws" but at the debate it kind of sounded like he wasn't so hot on making the border impermeable.

I'm confused.

I drew the conclusion from the campaign site that Paul is concerned about illegal immigration because it lists border enforcement as something he supports for immigration purposes. He has also voted FOR a fence, according to Sailingaway. However, the video posted earlier appears to contradict that stance. So, my question is, "Just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?"

 

[erowe1]

I drew the conclusion from the campaign site that Paul is concerned about illegal immigration because it lists border enforcement as something he supports for immigration purposes. He has also voted FOR a fence, according to Sailingaway. However, the video posted earlier appears to contradict that stance. So, my question is, "Just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?"

OK. To me, when you say "concerned about illegal immigration" that is not the same thing as being "concerned about illegals." If somebody said they were concerned about illegals, I would infer that they think there's some category of people out there who are somehow "illegal" and something needs to be done about them.

I would read that statement in the context of the rest of the page. He isn't for amnesty, and he isn't for birthright citizenship, and he isn't for welfare for illegal immigrants. So he is for laws against those things and he is for enforcing those laws. My understanding of the fence issue is that he's been pretty consistent. I think he has spoken about that vote before and said that the fence part of the law wasn't what he was voting for. And nothing on his page mentions a fence.

 

[Brett85]

Why not?

Many reasons.

1) That many new immigrants would take away jobs that Americans have and would make the unemployment rate go way up.
2) That many new immigrants would make welfare costs go up rapidly, as many of them are lower income people.
3) We need to have a way to do background checks on people coming here to make sure that they're coming here for the right reasons. Securing our borders is the most essential part of national defense. The way to keep ourselves safe from terrorism isn't to "fight them over there," it's to keep them from coming here.
4) You would have massive problems with over population in many U.S cities.
5) You would have a massive flow of people coming to the United States that don't respect our customs or speak our language.

 

[Brett85]

So......just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?

His official campaign site says: "Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws" but at the debate it kind of sounded like he wasn't so hot on making the border impermeable.

I'm confused.

I'm confused as well, and I think that many people watching the debate were also confused. It almost seems like Ron tries to intentionally turn off GOP voters at times. He's taken a strong stand on border security in the past, but in the debate it sounded like he was arguing in favor of open borders.

 

[Tarzan]

I drew the conclusion from the campaign site that Paul is concerned about illegal immigration because it lists border enforcement as something he supports for immigration purposes. He has also voted FOR a fence, according to Sailingaway. However, the video posted earlier appears to contradict that stance. So, my question is, "Just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?"

Going by a voting record can be misleading... unless you read the entire bill. While some will highlight specific sections to say a politician voted this way or that way... there are often many other components to the bill. So, they may vote for or against a given bill because of all the other crap in the bill. Unfortunately, it is not a simple answer as to why he voted a certain way.

Can you be specific in your question. I know it if probably clear in your head but it is not clear to me. If you could provide specific, uncomplicated questions some folks here could probably direct you to the answers you seek.

"Just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?" For example, what do you mean by "the border issue". I am not playing a semantics game with you... I truly do not understand what you want to know. So, please help by being specific, e.g.
1. Does RP want to build a fence?
2. Does RP want to offer amnesty to illegal immigrants?
3. How would RP prevent illegal immigrants from using free social services.
stuff like that

 

[w2992]

sure we could just charge $2000 each a little less than the cayote price. PAy off some debt. The constitution addresses naturalization not immigration.

 

[Tod]

Going by a voting record can be misleading... unless you read the entire bill. While some will highlight specific sections to say a politician voted this way or that way... there are often many other components to the bill. So, they may vote for or against a given bill because of all the other crap in the bill. Unfortunately, it is not a simple answer as to why he voted a certain way.

Can you be specific in your question. I know it if probably clear in your head but it is not clear to me. If you could provide specific, uncomplicated questions some folks here could probably direct you to the answers you seek.

"Just where DOES Paul stand on the border issue?" For example, what do you mean by "the border issue". I am not playing a semantics game with you... I truly do not understand what you want to know. So, please help by being specific, e.g.
1. Does RP want to build a fence?
2. Does RP want to offer amnesty to illegal immigrants?
3. How would RP prevent illegal immigrants from using free social services.
stuff like that

How about: Is Ron Paul interested in securing our borders against and otherwise deterring illegal immigrants and if so, how does he plan to do it?

 

[Tarzan]

How about: Is Ron Paul interested in securing our borders against and otherwise deterring illegal immigrants and if so, how does he plan to do it?

OK... see if this answers your questions, there are actually three, possibly four depending on how you read the original post (I am not going to try in case I don't have it exactly correct)

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/
and the official site
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/

When he says "Secure our Borders" I cannot tell you if that would entail using strictly the INS... the military... the national guard or other means. He has pretty much ruled out a fence. I can tell you what I would do... but the important part is what Ron Paul would do.

 

[QE Is Theft]

WWII we had internment camps right here in America.

For Japanese Americans.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

For Japanese Americans.

For ........ Americans.

 

[Tarzan]

For Japanese Americans.

Yes... and some of German and Italian descent as well.
None of which has anything to do with the border fence question or immigration... legal or otherwise.

 

[Zap!]

I agree. Even though you'll get attacked for saying this here, I'm pretty wary of Ron's position on the immigration issue. I wouldn't care if Ron said that he opposed the fence, as long as he said how he would secure the border as an alternative. But he didn't do that at all in the debate, and he came across as being very soft on immigration. This was an issue that we could've used against Rick Perry, because Perry has a very weak record on the immigration issue. But Ron's position on this issue isn't any better than Perry's from what I can see. I'm still going to support Ron Paul in the race, simply because the other candidates are all so bad. I can't support one of these candidates who support perpetual war in the middle east. But I still have concerns over Ron's stance on the immigration issue, and I sent an email to the campaign addressing my concerns. I hope that they respond to my email. In all honestly, if somebody like Pat Buchanan was in the race, I would support him instead of Ron.

I agree 100%. I will take it a bit further to say that I would support Buchanan over anyone in my lifetime. His perfect VP would be the late Helen Chenoweth, my favorite House member of all-time.

 

[Tod]

OK... see if this answers your questions, there are actually three, possibly four depending on how you read the original post (I am not going to try in case I don't have it exactly correct)

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/
and the official site
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/

When he says "Secure our Borders" I cannot tell you if that would entail using strictly the INS... the military... the national guard or other means. He has pretty much ruled out a fence. I can tell you what I would do... but the important part is what Ron Paul would do.

THANKS, Tarzan, that first video was GREAT!

+rep

 

[Carole]

So simple-

Stop subsidizing illegals. Period.

 

[erowe1]

Many reasons.

1) That many new immigrants would take away jobs that Americans have and would make the unemployment rate go way up.

That is ridiculous. There's not some limited number of jobs that when one person gets one, that leaves less for everyone else.

2) That many new immigrants would make welfare costs go up rapidly, as many of them are lower income people.

So cut welfare. Or just make noncitizens ineligible for it.

3) We need to have a way to do background checks on people coming here to make sure that they're coming here for the right reasons. Securing our borders is the most essential part of national defense. The way to keep ourselves safe from terrorism isn't to "fight them over there," it's to keep them from coming here.

We already have 60 million foreign tourists visit each year. For the purpose of making sure they come for the right reasons, why is it that these would be any harder to process if 20 million of them decided to stay longer?

4) You would have massive problems with over population in many U.S cities.

No you wouldn't. Let the free market work that out.

5) You would have a massive flow of people coming to the United States that don't respect our customs or speak our language.

Whose customs and whose language? What business is it of the government's what customs I practice in my own household and what language I speak? And if the government did dictate those things to us, how is establishing customs not the same thing as establishing religion? And if the federal government did tell us what customs to practice and how to talk, what makes you so sure that the customs you want to practice and the way you want to talk would be the ones that win the approval of your rulers?