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

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Live_Free_Or_Die, Why are you on Ron Paul Forums if you don't support Ron Paul?

What are you talking about? I said secure the border Constitution be damned. Implied power trumps the right to contract or travel. I am on your team. Let's deal with the illegal person problem immediately. Let's get illegal persons out of this country using deadly force if necessary. You are not a legal person or have any natural rights unless government says so and clearly we have too many illegal people in this country.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Do you consider national sovereignty to be "anti free market"?

Nationalism is anti-free market.

Do you consider states defending their borders to stop ILLEGAL aliens from entering, if they so choose, to be "anti free market"?

Do I consider governments creating imaginary lines in the sand, to extort from specifici population anti-free market? Why yes, i do.

Do you consider following the Rule of Law to be "anti free market"?

If it's not natural Law, than yes.

Do you consider the U.S. Constitution to be "anti free market"?

Yes.

Do you consider having a country at all, to be "anti free market"?

Yes, if a country requires a state.

MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

YouTube - Ron Paul Discusses Civil Disobedience, Self-Government & More with Motorhome Diaries

 

[ClayTrainor]

Answer the question, Clay. It's not hard.

I did, you just don't like my answer.

 

[Kregisen]

No, all immigrants don't affect that.

Not all immigrants do, and not all illegal immigrants do. Besides choosing not to renew their green card, there may be absolutely no difference at all between an illegal or legal immigrants.

Unless of course you assume they are sponging off the system, which I don't. And my opinion about this is on the record in these forums, I am for legal immigration. They're not the same thing and trying to make them sound like they are is intellectually dishonest on your part.

They are not the same thing.....I'm against illegal immigration, and there's a real argument against it. But YOUR argument is against ALL immigration, it has nothing to do with illegals.

 

[axiomata]

How liberal? I´d like to see a functioning nation with open borders (as LE specifically mentioned).

At the very least, a reasonable nation would probably check its potential immigrants for communicable diseases, check their sanity, and see if they´ve been convicted of anything substantial abroad.

First there is a difference between liberal immigration and liberal naturalization. I favor the former not the later. Migrant workers won't be coming here and voting for more welfare benefits. They won't be getting any and they won't be voting unless they decide to become a permanent resident, give up their previous citizenship, and pledge to obey and uphold the constitution.

I have no issue with checking for communicable diseases, check their sanity, and see if they've been convicted of anything substantial abroad. If this process is streamlined then the minor costs of a minimal amount of paperwork will be less the costs of paying a coyote to take you across the border illegally.

As for a functioning nation with an open immigration policy see the US prior to 1875.

 

[low preference guy]

Favoring or not favoring the Constitution has nothing to do with being in favor of free markets. There are serious reasoning problems in this thread.

I for instance favor the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution, but I'm as hardcore free-marketeer as Mises.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul is a U.S. Congressman and he defines himself as a Constitutionalist.

Don't even try to claim he wants to see the Constitution dismantled and the country to be dissolved. Sheesh.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I did, you just don't like my answer.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[ClayTrainor]

You didn't answer the question.

to your satisfaction.

 

[FrankRep]

What are you talking about? I said secure the border Constitution be damned. Implied power trumps the right to contract or travel. I am on your team. Let's deal with the illegal person problem immediately. Let's get illegal persons out of this country using deadly force if necessary. You are not a legal person or have any natural rights unless government says so and clearly we have too many illegal people in this country.

You said Ron Paul is anti-Free Market because he supports Immigration laws, but Free Markets aren't associated with Open Borders or Immigration Laws.

I viewed you calling Ron Paul anti-Free Market as an attack on Ron Paul. I misunderstood.

 

[charrob]

Just because you stick guns in peoples faces telling them not to hire immigrants, doesn't mean they will stop, it just means the prices and violence are going to escalate.

that doesn't make sense. The prices will only escalate to what the going rate is for a legal citizen to do that work; once it's reached that point, the illegal immigrant is no longer needed. problem solved.

Wages and prices both go up. You've solved nothing.

so how is this different than depressed wages and depressed prices?

Also, You put a gun to the employers head an forced him into a cage. Who's going to run the business?

the business fails-- but, the guy down the road who hires legal citizens, and produces a good but slightly higher in price product, can now compete in this legal market.

 

[Deborah K]

Not all immigrants do, and not all illegal immigrants do. Besides choosing not to renew their green card, there may be absolutely no difference at all between an illegal or legal immigrants.



They are not the same thing.....I'm against illegal immigration, and there's a real argument against it. But YOUR argument is against ALL immigration, it has nothing to do with illegals.

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

 

[ClayTrainor]

Ron Paul is a U.S. Congressman and he defines himself as a Constitutionalist.

I didn't deny that

Don't even try to claim he wants to see the Constitution dismantled and the country to be dissolved. Sheesh.

I didn't claim that, but in his own words... he's not completely against it...


MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ron Paul is a U.S. Congressman and he defines himself as a Constitutionalist.

Don't even try to claim he wants to see the Constitution dismantled and the country to be dissolved. Sheesh.

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.

 

[Deborah K]

Only gold and silver can be legal tender.

Not dissolved? Hmmm....

What would it mean to be dissolved?

As soon Obama becomes dictator. As soon as there is a violent revolution and martial law is enacted. As soon as we refer to ourselves as North Americans instead of Americans. Should I go on?

 

[low preference guy]

As soon Obama becomes dictator. As soon as there is a violent revolution and martial law is enacted. As soon as we refer to ourselves as North Americans instead of Americans. Should I go on?

Obama can order the assassination of American Citizens without a trial. In my book, he is a dictator already.

 

[ClayTrainor]

that doesn't make sense.

It does if you understand economics 101.

The prices will only escalate to what the going rate is for a legal citizen to do that work; once it's reached that point, the illegal immigrant is no longer needed.

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.

problem solved.

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

so how is this different than depressed wages and depressed prices?

Because those prices are voluntarily established. Your "legal" prices are arrived at through gunpoint. See the difference?

the business fails-- but, the guy down the road who hires legal citizens, and produces a good but slightly higher in price product, can now compete in this legal market.

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

 

[Kregisen]

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

I've done plenty of research on this issue....believe me, I've lived my whole life just a few hours north of the border. It's been the main issue here for the past decade.

I've seen immigration gumballs too. It's a pretty good vid but the guy isn't giving a fair view to both sides.....he said when the population doubles, that means we have to double the roads too. That's simply not true at all. He didn't take into account many services that wouldn't have to go up proportionately in price as to the number of people coming, such as roads. (vast majority of roads are not packed to the point where you can't fit more people on them...therefore costs don't go up when population rises for a certain road)

He never even bothered to mention tax revenue also goes up.....he ONLY focused on additional costs. That's called being biased.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You said Ron Paul is anti-Free Market because he supports Immigration laws, but Free Markets aren't associated with Open Borders or Immigration Laws.

I viewed you calling Ron Paul anti-Free Market as an attack on Ron Paul. I misunderstood.

I said he is anti free market as a nationalist who advocates protectionist policy. The free market is not about erecting obstacles to impede the flow of goods or people. What is the debate? This is fact.

 

[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.