Ron Paul Against Amnesty

[Pennsylvania]

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.

LE, I think this is rather unfair. In the same breath one might say that denying amnesty supports the agenda of White Nationalists. I do not support globalization as I am sure that you do not support White Nationalism.

 

[Pennsylvania]

We don't want any lawbreakers roaming around do we?

What does law-breaking have to do with "whites-only" establishments?

 

[pcosmar]

What does law-breaking have to do with "whites-only" establishments?

Straw man argument. Misdirection. Derailment. Obfuscation.

 

[Feenix566]

I'd like to hear your perspective...

I think that's the first time anyone has ever actually ASKED for my perspective on a forum. All the other times I've just inserted it whether anyone wanted it there or not.

My perspective is this: When new people join our community, which in this case includes the entire population of the United States, that not only increases the supply of labor, but it simultaneously increases the demand for goods. Just like everything in economics, there are two sides to the coin. So many people fail to see the other side.

Immigrants buy food, and clothing, and electronics, and pay rent, and phone bills, and drive cars, and consume goods just as much as everyone else. All of these activities create jobs.

There is literally no limit to how many jobs can exist. The more consumers there are, the more jobs there will be. So when you say that immigrants are taking jobs, that only displays a lack of perspective on the whole issue of economics.

Economic prosperity depends on division of labor and specialization. That's why we've come as far as we have. The more diverse your work force is, the more specialized each member of the community can be, and hence the better all the widgets we produce will be.

Immigration is good for the economy. That's why I support amnesty and open borders.

 

[pcosmar]

and hence the better all the widgets we produce will be.

.

We no longer produce widgets, All widget production has been relocated.

 

[Feenix566]

We no longer produce widgets, All widget production has been relocated.

That's not true at all. The United States produces $13 trillion worth of widgets per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Don't be fooled by the hype.

 

[Mesogen]

What does law-breaking have to do with "whites-only" establishments?

There used to be laws against blacks patronizing establishments labeled, by law, as whites only.

Then people started breaking the law. There were lawbreakers everywhere.

Then the law changed. They had amnesty.

 

[constituent]

I think that's the first time anyone has ever actually ASKED for my perspective on a forum. All the other times I've just inserted it whether anyone wanted it there or not.

My perspective is this: When new people join our community, which in this case includes the entire population of the United States, that not only increases the supply of labor, but it simultaneously increases the demand for goods. Just like everything in economics, there are two sides to the coin. So many people fail to see the other side.

Immigrants buy food, and clothing, and electronics, and pay rent, and phone bills, and drive cars, and consume goods just as much as everyone else. All of these activities create jobs.

There is literally no limit to how many jobs can exist. The more consumers there are, the more jobs there will be. So when you say that immigrants are taking jobs, that only displays a lack of perspective on the whole issue of economics.

Economic prosperity depends on division of labor and specialization. That's why we've come as far as we have. The more diverse your work force is, the more specialized each member of the community can be, and hence the better all the widgets we produce will be.

Immigration is good for the economy. That's why I support amnesty and open borders.

I could not agree more! Thanks for sharing!

 

[LibertyEagle]

LE, I think this is rather unfair. In the same breath one might say that denying amnesty supports the agenda of White Nationalists. I do not support globalization as I am sure that you do not support White Nationalism.

I did not say you support it, but I think you are going along with the agenda that the globalists are using, in part, to take down this country. Neither big government political party clearly wants to stop illegal immigration. Why do you think that is?

We have illegal aliens here now that came over to our country, not because they wanted to have an opportunity to succeed and be free, but to take a good portion of it for Aztlan and are venomous towards Americans. What's more, some seem to think we owe them every handout under the sun. This is frickin' ridiculous.

We had immigration quotas for a reason. Maybe they were too low. Don't know. But, they didn't overweight immigrants from any one country, so as not to unduly change our culture in this country. They also wanted people who wanted to learn our history and become an American. Frankly, I've met a number of immigrants who know a lot more about our foundation and apparently long lost principles, than people who were born here. They also made sure that they weren't carrying any diseases, etc., and could be self-sufficient. I don't think this was a bad idea.

That said, I don't want a fortress either and didn't have one, single, problem with a few Mexicans coming over here to work. It's no longer like that anymore though. I think the only way we're really going to stop this is to get rid of the handouts. But, in the meantime, what do we do? I'm getting pretty tired of hearing about people killed by illegal aliens.

National defense is actually a legitimate function of our federal government. It's time they did their job. My opinion, anyway.

 

[Pennsylvania]

I did not say you support it, but I think you are going along with the agenda that the globalists are using, in part, to take down this country.

Do you agree with me though in that saying that my position supports the agenda of globalists is equivalent to yours supporting that of white nationalists? Why or why not?

Neither big government political party clearly wants to stop illegal immigration. Why do you think that is?

Is this really the case? I honestly don't know, and don't use either party's positions to form my own. Surely Bush didn't do a good job securing the border. But also, McCain, who supported amnesty, is hardly a good representation of republicanism. I personally do not know the positions of Romney, Huckabee, Jindal, or Palin on amnesty. Do they support lenient borders as well?

We have illegal aliens here now that came over to our country, not because they wanted to have an opportunity to succeed and be free, but to take a good portion of it for Aztlan and are venomous towards Americans. What's more, some seem to think we owe them every handout under the sun. This is frickin' ridiculous.

Yes that mentality is ridiculous, I can agree with that. Can I ask where you've gotten this information from? I wouldn't say that that isn't the case for some of them, but as Ron Paul recognizes that most wars are fought for economics reasons, I recognize that most human migrations occur for economic reasons. Such was the case with my own Irish ancestors.

 

[worl]

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.

I said you have the same views as a globalist which also includes amnesty & open borders. Without a border we are not a nation, without state borders we are not a state. If the globalist agenda continues as they plan we will be the north american union & will cease to be a sovereighn nation as our founders intended & generations fought for. Illegal immigration is a part of the nau. I really don't care at all about the problems in mexico or any other country. when they come here illegaly & hold up the mex. flag & protest in our streets & take jobs from legal americans then they can expect me to dispise them & the people who become wealthy by using them as slave labor.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Do you agree with me though in that saying that my position supports the agenda of globalists is equivalent to yours supporting that of white nationalists? Why or why not?

I had to turn my head sideways to see the comparison, but yes, I can see what you're saying.

Is this really the case? I honestly don't know, and don't use either party's positions to form my own. Surely Bush didn't do a good job securing the border. But also, McCain, who supported amnesty, is hardly a good representation of republicanism. I personally do not know the positions of Romney, Huckabee, Jindal, or Palin on amnesty. Do they support lenient borders as well?

Clearly they don't, or they would have secured the border long ago. The Dems didn't want to do it, but the Repubs had the numbers and still did not do it. Even the legislation that WAS passed was largely not implemented because Bush refused to and there the Repubs sat, twiddling their thumbs.

Yes that mentality is ridiculous, I can agree with that. Can I ask where you've gotten this information from? I wouldn't say that that isn't the case for some of them, but as Ron Paul recognizes that most wars are fought for economics reasons, I recognize that most human migrations occur for economic reasons. Such was the case with my own Irish ancestors.

Yeah, sure. It's been talked about on this forum before, so you might find it in a search, or just google Aztlan. That would probably be your quickest way. If I get a chance, I'll try to find something for you too.

 

[Pennsylvania]

I said you have the same views as a globalist which also includes amnesty & open borders. Without a border we are not a nation, without state borders we are not a state. If the globalist agenda continues as they plan we will be the north american union & will cease to be a sovereighn nation as our founders intended & generations fought for. Illegal immigration is a part of the nau. I really don't care at all about the problems in mexico or any other country. when they come here illegaly & hold up the mex. flag & protest in our streets & take jobs from legal americans then they can expect me to dispise them & the people who become wealthy by using them as slave labor.

Yes I recognize that it is possible to draw similarities betwen myself and globalists based on our opinions on borders. Do you recognize the myriad differences though?

 

[The_Orlonater]

So again this is all irrelevant spam designed to detract from the issue at hand, illegal immigration and the rule of law. The two previous posts have nothing to do with illegal immigration. They are murderers.

This thread is about Ron Paul being opposed to amnesty and that there are consequences due to illegal immigration as supported by many of the left wing zealots who proclaim to support Ron Paul.

No it is not, it's the same nonsense you posted over an illegal immigrant killing a person. What's the difference if a person without permission(U.S. government permission) kills a person and a natural born citizen who kills somebody?
None, they should be both tried.

 

[The_Orlonater]

But you're inadvertertently fueling the welfare state by asking these people to take residence here. I don't think you can separate the two. Look at the lists of hospitals shut down in California for instance.

That's not true, that's is like saying that we fuel the millions of Americans on welfare because we pay our taxes.

 

[LibertyEagle]

That's not true, that's is like saying that we fuel the millions of Americans on welfare because we pay our taxes.

I see your point, but the reality is that until we are able to get our government back within their constitutional boundaries, the last thing we need to do is to bring in more people into this country to suck at the government teat and pickpocket what's left of our bank accounts.

After we get that done, then we can talk.

 

[The_Orlonater]

I see your point, but the reality is that until we are able to get our government back within their constitutional boundaries, the last thing we need to do is to bring in more people into this country to suck at the government teat and pickpocket what's left of our bank accounts.

After we get that done, then we can talk.

I promise you, if we got rid of the welfare state and the War on Drugs there won't be any more threads like this.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I promise you, if we got rid of the welfare state and the War on Drugs there won't be any more threads like this.

In the meantime though, as I said above, we don't need any additional freeloaders coming into our country to pickpocket our bank accounts.

 

[worl]

Yes I recognize that it is possible to draw similarities betwen myself and globalists based on our opinions on borders. Do you recognize the myriad differences though?

It's true that borders are only one similarity & I see your diferances with gov. but do you understand that amnesty & the nau is also a plan of the globalist. While you may have many conflicting beliefs with the globalist, these two are a part of their agenda.

 

[Conservative Christian]

Immigration and the Welfare State

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html

"More and more of my constituents are asking me when Congress will address the problem of illegal immigration. The public correctly perceives that neither political party has the courage to do what is necessary to prevent further erosion of both our border security and our national identity. As a result, immigration may be the sleeper issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.

The problem of illegal immigration will not be solved easily, but we can start by recognizing that the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the answer. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country illegally should not be rewarded with a visa. Why should lawbreakers obtain a free pass, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa?

We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants – certainly not all – receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.

Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens from taking low-wage jobs. This creates greater demand for illegal foreign labor. Welfare programs and minimum wage laws create an artificial market for labor to do the jobs Americans supposedly won’t do.

Illegal immigrants also place a tremendous strain on social entitlement programs. Under a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs – programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning.

Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government.

Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.

We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

If we took some of the steps I have outlined here – eliminating the welfare state and securing our borders – we could effectively address the problem of illegal immigration in a manner that would not undermine the freedom of American citizens. Sadly, it appears we are moving toward policies like a national ID that diminish our liberties. Like gun control, these approaches only punish the innocent, as criminals will always find a way around the law."

August 9, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

..