Ron Paul on Immigration. Do you agree or disagree with Ron Paul?

[someperson]

I doubt his actual position has changed any from that which Clay linked to from 20 years ago.

However, a lot of the positions that he has publicized recently are transitional in nature. For example, he's recently stated that he wonders why healthcare benefits "for children" are targeted for cutting before excessive military spending. He's also said on several occasions that he's one of the few with a plan to save social security, by redirecting some of said military spending in order to shore it up. Finally, he's said that he doesn't want the rest of the entitlement programs, like medicare and medicaid, cut overnight, and would phase them out by making them, along with social security, opt-in.

He has suggested that troops could guard the borders - not because he likes the idea, but because they would, in transition, need somewhere to go as they're brought back from all over the world. During the 2008 campaign, he lamented the vote about the construction of a border fence... we all remember these things, don't we? I can't be the only one.

Based on all of the above, you'd have to be atypically disingenuous to believe that he desires the redistribution of wealth, or that he loves the social security system, or that he supports government healthcare "for children." The statements referred to in this thread, likewise, don't mean he's for sealed borders.

Even if he was for sealed borders, which he obviously isn't, I don't understand why so many individuals are, in a sense, appealing to his authority, in order to manufacture some kind of division around this position. Let each individual come to their own conclusion. This isn't johnmccainforum.com or barackobamaforum.com; the last thing we need around here are ideological drones and group conformists.

Here's the video that Clay linked to:

YouTube - Ron Paul on the Deficit, Government Spending, and Military Industrial Complex (1988)

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think I would know what I am for and what I am against. A properly enforced immgration system would allow for the proper number of immigrants in on a yearly basis. Immigration enhances America when it is done properly. You need a reality check:

YouTube - Immigration Gumballs

What is the proper number? How do you, Deborah know what the proper number is? For that matter how does a centralized bureaucrat know the proper number? Have you learned nothing of the follies of central planning?! Only the market can decide the proper supplies of labor, not you, not a bureaucrat.

What is properly enforced? ID cards? Biometics? Papers? Skin color? How are you going to tell who is a citizen and who isn't? Am I going to get harassed walking down the street if my skin color is brown? What about on the Northern border? What about down in Florida? How do you plan to enforce thousands and thousands of miles of borders? What about illegals hopping on planes shipping goods? You going to inspect every single container that enters the country? The CG catches probably 5% of the migrants from the Caribbean.

If you want to talk about vague plans.....

 

[Deborah K]

Who is claiming that? We are advocating the government exercise implied power that was not expressly delegated because we don't like illegal persons. Who gives a crap what the Constitution says. It doesn't matter. Implied powers can be whatever we want them to be when we get elected.

Since implied powers ARE Constitutional it does not matter what anything else in the Constitution says. Implied power trumps it. We need to secure the borders immediately and get rid of illegal persons. They don't belong here.

This is a misunderstanding of what implied powers means. And I'm sure you're being facetious. Implied powers permits Congress to identify and use powers that are logical extensions or implications of the other powers delegated in the Constitution, i.e. naturalisation/immigration. It's not a free-for-all. Although arguably the gov't of the last 100 years seems to think it is.

 

[Deborah K]

What is the proper number? How do you, Deborah know what the proper number is? For that matter how does a centralized bureaucrat know the proper number? Have you learned nothing of the follies of central planning?! Only the market can decide the proper supplies of labor, not you, not a bureaucrat.

What is properly enforced? ID cards? Biometics? Papers? Skin color? How are you going to tell who is a citizen and who isn't? Am I going to get harassed walking down the street if my skin color is brown? What about on the Northern border? What about down in Florida? How do you plan to enforce thousands and thousands of miles of borders? What about illegals hopping on planes shipping goods? You going to inspect every single container that enters the country? The CG catches probably 5% of the migrants from the Caribbean.

If you want to talk about vague plans.....

Still waiting for your evidence that our country can handle 3 billion people.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Still waiting for your evidence that our country can handle 3 billion people.

I all ready responded to that, but are you going to respond to my questions?

 

[someperson]

While I'm at it, I'll mention that he doesn't even want the Fed abolished, as he has stated that such an action would likely result in chaos. He, instead, supports the idea of introducing competition to the Fed, through competing currencies. I doubt anyone would suggest that he's pro-fed because of this. Back to the borders, he's always been against protectionism in trade, which placed him opposite that guy on Morning Joe.... Mr. Buchanan? for many years.

About the fence:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ron_paul_on_immigration.html

Stossel: You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?
Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

I don't even know why I have to search for all of this stuff; most here should remember all of this lol

 

[Deborah K]

I all ready responded to that, but are you going to respond to my questions?

Where is it. Can't find it.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

This is a misunderstanding of what implied powers means. And I'm sure you're being facetious. Implied powers permits Congress to identify and use powers that are logical extensions or implications of the other powers delegated in the Constitution, i.e. naturalisation/immigration. It's not a free-for-all. Although arguably the gov't of the last 100 years seems to think it is.

I am with you we extended allegiance to policing borders defined in state constitutions. One obviously has nothing to do with the other. And now we have extended policing borders defined in state constitutions to killing people. Now that is has been logically extended lets start killing illegal people and get rid of them using our new president endorsed implied powers.

 

[FrankRep]

While I'm at it, I'll mention that he doesn't even want the Fed abolished, as he has stated that such an action would likely result in chaos. He, instead, supports the idea of introducing competition to the Fed, through competing currencies.

Ron Paul knows it's impossible to abolish the Federal Reserve overnight. You must slowly dismantle it over many many years. Incrementalism.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Ron Paul knows it's impossible to abolish the Federal Reserve overnight. You must slowly dismantle it over many many years. Incrementalism.

How did that Audit the Fed bill workout?

 

[Deborah K]

This is non-sense. Why is the Chinese standard of living rising if they keep increasing their population in a smaller landmass than that of the US? So infuriating!!! It's economic policies that are causing our standard of living to decline, not some amount of people (and I'm not even going to address how ridiculous it is to assume that we have had 150 million immigrants arrive in the country in the last 50 years).

Is this your answer? Because this doesn't address natural resources.

 

[low preference guy]

How did that Audit the Fed bill workout?

How did whatever you're doing to abolish the Fed work out?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ron Paul knows it's impossible to abolish the Federal Reserve overnight. You must slowly dismantle it over many many years. Incrementalism.

Some of our non statist friends might claim Ron Paul advocates market solutions that involve competition but we know they are full of poop because Ron Paul is the Champion of the Constitution and would only force people to use Congressionally defined legal tender or a Constitutional metal standard to pay taxes.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Is this your answer? Because this doesn't address natural resources.

I've answered the question, you can ask Charrob if you want. Now, will you answer my questions? Stop trying to pussyfoot around the issue at hand.

 

[ClayTrainor]

How did whatever you're doing to abolish the Fed work out?

I supported the effort, I just know there is no way the state is going to audit itself, I'm sure Ron Paul knew this too. I prefer the End The Fed motto, to the Audit the Fed then End It motto.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

 

[charrob]

The prices are based on how much it costs to produce the product, period. The cost of wages is included in the price. By using guns and prohibition of certain kinds of labor to regulate production, you drive the cost of the product up.

right-- the product price now reflects the true value of the material+labor that went into that product; when the labor is from the labor-pool of legal citizens. This reflects our values of worker-safety, overtime-pay, etc., which are not reflected for labor paid under the table for illegals.

Sorry but shoving non-violent people into cages at gun point is not a rational solution to anything.

it's a rational solution to illegal immigration. Additionally, I don't see these employers as "non-violent": in fact, i see them as very violent. They are suppressing the wages of low-skilled Americans who now barely survive; they are profitting substantially at my expense and because of them they are violently making me pay for the schools and services of this society which these illegal aliens use.

Awesome... so you force businesses to fail at the point of a gun, drive prices up, and solve nothing.

on the contrary: this allows legal businesses who hire legal American citizens to open up new businesses: they couldn't compete before because of the business hiring illegals; now that that guy is behind bars, the legal business can profit by selling products at their true cost. Additionally, this solves the problem of illegal immigration; all our taxes go down substantially (over 90% of my state taxes are for schools) and people can afford even more.

 

[Deborah K]

I all ready responded to that, but are you going to respond to my questions?

As to your questions, first of all had you watched the clip you'd know that the Census bureau and demographers determine appropriate population growth.

As to your other questions, my answer to illegal immigration is to enforce existing immigration laws - no need to add new ones. Make working here legally easier. Secure the borders. Secure, not CLOSE. These have always been my solutions.

And Mexicans, as well as citizens of other countries with corrupt gov'ts should rise up. I believe people would be happy to live in the countries of their origin if their gov'ts weren't so damned corrupt.

 

[ClayTrainor]

right-- the product price now reflects the true value of the material+labor that went into that product; when the labor is from the labor-pool of legal citizens. This reflects our values of worker-safety, overtime-pay, etc., which are not reflected for labor paid under the table for illegals.



it's a rational solution to illegal immigration. Additionally, I don't see these employers as "non-violent": in fact, i see them as very violent. They are suppressing the wages of low-skilled Americans who now barely survive; they are profitting substantially at my expense and because of them they are violently making me pay for the schools and services of this society which these illegal aliens use.



on the contrary: this allows legal businesses who hire legal American citizens to open up new businesses: they couldn't compete before because of the business hiring illegals; now that that guy is behind bars, the legal business can profit by selling products at their true cost. Additionally, this solves the problem of illegal immigration; all our taxes go down substantially (over 90% of my state taxes are for schools) and people can afford even more.

Can someone else deal with these economic fallacies, please? I gotta head out for the night, and am going to be quite busy over the next couple of days.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

right-- the product price now reflects the true value of the material+labor that went into that product; when the labor is from the labor-pool of legal citizens. This reflects our values of worker-safety, overtime-pay, etc., which are not reflected for labor paid under the table for illegals.



it's a rational solution to illegal immigration. Additionally, I don't see these employers as "non-violent": in fact, i see them as very violent. They are suppressing the wages of low-skilled Americans who now barely survive; they are profitting substantially at my expense and because of them they are violently making me pay for the schools and services of this society which these illegal aliens use.



on the contrary: this allows legal businesses who hire legal American citizens to open up new businesses: they couldn't compete before because of the business hiring illegals; now that that guy is behind bars, the legal business can profit by selling products at their true cost. Additionally, this solves the problem of illegal immigration; all our taxes go down substantially (over 90% of my state taxes are for schools) and people can afford even more.

I assume you have never read The Law. You have wrapped yourself up in so much legalese you rationalize plunder, tyranny, and violence. Such a pity.

 

[Deborah K]

I've answered the question, you can ask Charrob if you want. Now, will you answer my questions? Stop trying to pussyfoot around the issue at hand.

Why must you be so rude?