Ron Paul Against Amnesty

You have the same view as most of our gov. officials & corp. america since they also support the north american union & the new world order which means the distruction of our constitution & sovorenty. No states rights since you don't want border's. You would be considered a globalist with these views.

Worl, there is a difference between me and a globalist in that a globalist supports massive centralization, I.E. world government. I am on the other end of the spectrum. It is true that in both scenarios the effect on borders is similar, but the worldviews are drastically different, so I cannot be considered a globalist anymore than Ron Paul can be considered an isolationist. :)

We are dealing with many shades of gray here. States "rights" are better than undue federal power because they embody the spirit of decentralization. It is easier for a government to serve its people when that government is smaller, yes I agree here, and that is why I support these 10th amendment measures recently undertaken by many of our state legislatures, including my own. However, individual rights still trump states rights, and when there is a conflict between a State right, and an individual right, the individual must always be favored. This is why I see little need for states, borders, etc.., except as mere convenience terms.
 
Last edited:
Did Ron Paul say that, or just the blogger at the site?

You know the answer, I find it telling that you would misattribute the quote to suit your purpose though.

You might want to read through the Ron Paul Library. He makes his position and points very plain.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=5

I tend to agree with him.
"The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked."
Ron Paul, RonPaul2008.com, May 2007
 
Last edited:
You might want to read through the Ron Paul Library. He makes his position and points very plain.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=5

I tend to agree with him.

The question is about the origins of the quote, but thanks for the perspective.

That said, I find this part interesting

Press Release said:
The bill passed yesterday requires the Homeland Security Department to gain "operational control" of the country's international borders, authorizes the construction of approximately 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border, requires a study of implementing security systems along the U.S.-Canadian border, and directs the department to evaluate the ability of personnel to stop fleeing vehicles at the border.

I thought ol' Ron was opposed to the Department of Homeland Security. Wonder what gives?
 
Try again.

RonPaul.com is his "campaign page?"

No, it's not. Again, you know that.

And if you're "pretty darned sure," might "check your premise."

I didn't say it was, Constituent, but they have duped the Issues from his campaign page.

I feel quite comfortable in saying what I did. If you want to call me a liar, I suggest you prove it.
 
I didn't say it was, Constituent

I know I didn't imagine this:

LibertyEagle said:
"A nation without borders is no nation at all" -- Ron Paul

When you follow a quote with someone's name in the manner displayed above, it is called "attribution." This is a false attribution.

LibertyEagle said:
I feel quite comfortable in saying what I did. If you want to call me a liar, I suggest you prove it.

Consider it proven, but don't take my word for it. Take your word for it.
 
Last edited:
constituent;2001413 I recommend taking it to PMs, lest it get really ugly in here (i would prefer it didn't, the choice is yours to make though

All you have to do is back the fuck off and it'll be over. The choice is YOURS to make!
 
I thought ol' Ron was opposed to the Department of Homeland Security. Wonder what gives?
Border Patrol is not the same thing as Homeland Security.

On Illegal Immigration and Border Security

Illegal immigration is on the forefront of many Americans’ minds lately and with good reason. The Center for Immigration Studies has recently reported that our immigrant population is now 37 million, up from 27 million in 1997. 1 in 3 of these immigrants are here illegally. We have a problem that has exploded in the last 10 years with no appreciable change in border security since September 11 when we were supposed to take a hard look at the problem.

We have security issues at home and our resources are running thin. Our education system is stretched, and immigration accounts for virtually all the national increase in public school enrollment in the last 2 decades. There is a worker present in 78% of immigrant households using at least one major welfare program, according to the same study. It’s no surprise then that often times these immigrants can afford to work for lower wages. They are subsidized by our government to do so.

Right now we are subsidizing a lot of illegal immigration with our robust social programs and it is an outrage that instead of coming to the United States as a land of opportunity, many come for the security guaranteed by government forced transfer payments through our welfare system. I have opposed giving federal assistance to illegal immigrants and have introduced legislation that ends this practice. In the last major House-passed immigration bill I attempted to introduce an amendment that would make illegal immigrants ineligible for any federal assistance. Unfortunately, that amendment was ruled "not relevant" to immigration reform. I believe it is very relevant to taxpayers, however, who are being taken advantage of through the welfare system. Illegal immigrants should never be eligible for public schooling, social security checks, welfare checks, free healthcare, food stamps, or any other form government assistance.

The anchor baby phenomenon has also been very problematic. Simply being born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents should not trigger automatic citizenship. This encourages many dangerous behaviors and there are many unintended consequences as a result of this blanket policy. I am against amnesty and I have introduced an amendment to the Constitution (H.J. Res 46) which will end this form of amnesty.

I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders. For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation – we don’t have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs.

The anger is understandable when it comes to illegal immigration and the problems with our borders. I will continue to fight in Congress for more effective ways to address these issues in keeping with the Constitutional mandate to protect America .
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst120207.htm
 
"The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked."
Ron Paul, RonPaul2008.com, May 2007

Now, that is a correct attribution.
 
Consider it proven, but don't take my word for it.

You proved nothing, Constituent.

There's got to be a cached version of his Issues page from the campaign website out there someplace. Help me find it and we can settle this.
 
You proved nothing, Constituent.

There's got to be a cached version of his Issues page from the campaign website out there someplace. Help me find it and we can settle this.

pcosmar beat you to it, i'll concede that point. still a false attribution though when you assigned the quotes origin to ronpaul.com, let's not get into the merits of their failure to properly quote and cite their source.
 
He does, however it exists and he recognizes that.
The Border Patrol is now incorporated in that agency.

Ooook, so he only opposes it at his convenience, and supports it when doing so is politically expedient?

(n/m, that deserves a thread of its own, feel free to start it)
 
Consider it proven, but don't take my word for it. [/URL]

The only thing Proven is your inability to read and comprehend.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=5
"The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked."
Ron Paul, RonPaul2008.com, May 2007

I have also heard him say this with his own mouth in an interview.
 
Ooook, so he only opposes it at his convenience, and supports it when doing so is politically expedient?

(n/m, that deserves a thread of its own, feel free to start it)

Now you are just being obstinate and friggin stupid. :(
 
If Ron Paul is an isolationist, who's wary of foreign entanglement, why he would want "open borders"? Counterproductive to say the least, if you support moving huge blocks of foreign nationals into your native country.
 
Last edited:
If Ron Paul is an isolationist, who's wary of foreign entanglement, why he would want "open borders"? Counterproductive to say the least, if you support moving huge blocks of foreign nationals into your native country.

What you're missing is

1) it is impossible to close borders, ask the USSR

2) by increasing the risk of re-return, you create a disincentive for those who are here illegally to ever leave.

Clamping down and militarizing the border is the very essence of counterproductive.
 
You have the same view as most of our gov. officials & corp. america since they also support the north american union & the new world order which means the distruction of our constitution & sovorenty. No states rights since you don't want border's. You would be considered a globalist with these views.

That's what I was thinking. They may not believe in the NAU or globalism, per se, but it appears that their stance is doing nothing but helping those who do.
 
Now you are just being obstinate and friggin stupid. :(

Sorry, did I insult you?

I certainly could, as you've provided no shortage of cannon fodder.

Overall, I like you and would prefer to avoid it, if possible. Otherwise I'd suggest climbing back into your bunker before fema comes to getcha! :p;):D
 
Back
Top