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

[low preference guy]

we see differently on this; imo violence was, and has been, perpetrated on the working poor who have had their wages suppressed because of illegal immigration.

the question is by whom has the violence been perpetrated? you say all the money goes to food stamps, etc. who took the money? the employers? No, the government, the politicians, and the idiotic population who votes for welfare benefits and unemployment benefits. You want to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty. Despicable.

checking social security numbers?

Like they cannot be faked? If there are 12,000,000, the demand for having people to mess up with the system is pretty big. Social Security administration will become unbelievably corrupt, not to mention people stealing social security numbers and faking identities, if it were to ever be enforced seriously.

Plus it will never happen. I don't know why you are so strongly arguing this, because business interests who get cheaper labor due to immigration will never allow a strong system to stop immigration. So there will be opposition from the right for economic reasons. From the left, it will be opposition for cultural reasons. In other words, there are zero chances that any of the proposals to stop immigration will be implemented.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

How come I always get the impression in these threads that the people against enforcing immigration laws are doing so because they want the system to collapse completely? Visions of MadMax heroism and shit....

ChearleadersForCollapse.com

What do you think?

Now let's address your claims.

Enforce immigration law? With regards to the constitution I have acknowledged the rule of law and original intent - words mean what words mean not Congress defining what words mean creating new powers whenever they want.

What cracks me up about this issue is people who bitch about the commerce clause as unconstitutional citing original intent and then rail about immigration as if it has anything to do with allegiance. Then if you ask them to cite or source Constitutional authority for a power that was created 100 years after the Constitution was signed... they can't. It's a joke. The original intent hypocrites are just plain repugnant.

Next if we want to get into present federal immigration code... it is not illegal to be in the United States once here unless you have committed a removable offense. So again not only do these people not know much of jack shit about the Constitution they don't even know what the current "law" is. In a ruling I cited Congress has only made it illegal to cross the border and it is not a crime, only a deportable offense if you catch people in the act.

So what have I acknowledged. Well I have been in more than one very long immigration thread talking about the fine details of constitutions and Ron Paul's older views and an interview where he mentioned what has changed about his view. I have stated Ron Paul advocates a transition plan and these people that cite Ron Paul as an authority have an agenda to permanently secure borders impeding the free flow of goods or people. If you go back and listen to Dr. Paul one of his biggest criticisms of the present situation is that people were kind of forced into staying here once they got here. If they could simply cross the border they would probably go back to Mexico after the growing season.

Constitutionally trespassing a state border is a state matter. The reason borders are not policed is because residents in border states have never wanted to pay the cost necessary to police their borders. Since it is a state matter I have suggested states raising a militia to police borders. I have also suggested states might not even have to pay if they recognized citizen militias and provided conditional immunity for the use of force.

Many people have suggested ending the welfare state, the drug war, agriculture subsidies, etc. and I fully endorse those actions.

Many people have suggested ending birthright citizenship and enforcing allegiance (ie insure citizenship) when people vote.

If the choices are ignore all of the solutions and create more problems with more intervention I will be waiting for the complete collapse or total tyranny resulting from bigger government. Between total tyranny and complete collapse I prefer the latter.

 

[charrob]

the question is by whom has the violence been perpetrated? you say all the money goes to food stamps, etc. who took the money? the employers?

yes. -the employers hired illegals at a subsidized amount: i'm paying the subsidy for that employer who is not paying the true cost of that illegal's labor.


-time to call it a night, as it's late. -we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[specsaregood]

Many people have suggested ending the welfare state, the drug war, agriculture subsidies, etc. and I fully endorse those actions.

Many people have suggested ending birthright citizenship and enforcing allegiance (ie insure citizenship) when people vote.

If the choices are ignore all of the solutions and create more problems with more intervention I will be waiting for the complete collapse or total tyranny resulting from bigger government. Between total tyranny and complete collapse I prefer the latter.

Well, seeing as our current crop of politicians have no intent to try any of the preferred solutions that most agree upon here and you listed above, it seems I was correct in my statement.

 

[someperson]

So what have I acknowledged. Well I have been in more than one very long immigration thread talking about the fine details of constitutions and Ron Paul's older views and an interview where he mentioned what has changed about his view. I have stated Ron Paul advocates a transition plan and these people that cite Ron Paul as an authority have an agenda to permanently secure borders impeding the free flow of goods or people. If you go back and listen to Dr. Paul one of his biggest criticisms of the present situation is that people were kind of forced into staying here once they got here. If they could simply cross the border they would probably go back to Mexico after the growing season.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who remembers these points. Great points, throughout. Thanks

 

[low preference guy]

yes. -the employers hired illegals at a subsidized amount: i'm paying the subsidy for that employer who is not paying the true cost of that illegal's labor.


-time to call it a night, as it's late. -we will have to agree to disagree.

you can of course "agree to disagree" but it won't change the fact that you want to leave the guilty alone.

you in your own post said that the employers receive subsidized labor. no matter how hard you try to ignore reality or to "agree to disagree" it is still true that the people who made this situation possible is the people who provided the subsidy. and they should all go to jail before you even consider the possibility of jailing employers. what you're doing is refusing to face reality and in consequence advocate for the guilty to be left free. in fact, you're more guilty and deserving of jail than any of those employers, because you advocate for the real guilty party to be left alone, and that's a bigger crime than anything the employers did.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

well of course illegal immigrants should never get such services; the problem is that most have very large families and these children will grow to be uneducated illiterates and that has a direct negative impact on society and our country to have such a large uneducated underclass. Many of these people are already desperately poor (5 and 6 families living in one-room apartments) because of suppressed wages you are willing to pay them. It is not good for our country as a whole imo. It's turning our country into a 3rd world nation.

If aliens pay income, property, and every other tax what is the problem? I have to pay for your and everyone else's kids even if you have eight. I am tired of paying for everyone's kids so don't expect me to help you get the system to a point where it only benefits you and I only have to pay for your kids. Screw that. How does it feel paying for people's kids you don't like? I kind of like the fact you are unhappy about paying for peoples kids.

If employers are not hiring them, most of those here will go home. (btw: many believe there are actually more than 20 million.)

Since you or none of your neighbors are going to get out in a field and pick strawberries sweating or work in animal shit all day plan on food getting a lot more expensive and eating less once immigrant labor is gone.

we see differently on this; imo violence was, and has been, perpetrated on the working poor who have had their wages suppressed because of illegal immigration.

Only in America are people who have air conditioning, tv's, electricity, running water, and a whole bunch of other crap ignorant enough to bitch about being poor and compare America to third world countries.

checking social security numbers?

Great let's make something not required to work in the U.S., mandatory.

 

[cindy25]

borders, if too strict, can and will be used to keep people in who wish to leave.

it is ridiculous that an American needs a passport to cross the Canadian border, and an Estonian can travel all the way to Spain with none.

take away all the freebies and very few object to Mexicans.

no one cares about Mexicans picking fruit, or waiting on tables. its the free education, healthcare, housing that most people object to.

amnesty-with a vote never, but with permanent residence subject to no benefit rule , then why not?

 

[low preference guy]

amnesty-with a vote never, but with permanent residence subject to no benefit rule , then why not?

because it's unfair to the people who went through the immigration process using the proper procedure. they should be allowed in first.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Well, seeing as our current crop of politicians have no intent to try any of the preferred solutions that most agree upon here and you listed above, it seems I was correct in my statement.

I don't think it matters. The reason the federal government is out of control is because there are so many assholes in the U.S. that want to tell everyone how to live.

Pro choice/abortion issue fanatics using the federal government when they couldn't get their way at the states.

Welfare addicts using the federal government when the reason health care costs suck in their state is mainly due to all of the interventions in health care by their state.

Border fanatics using the federal government to get their way policing the border because the residents of their state wont pay for it.

Civil right fanatics... the list goes on and on.

For all of the talk about state rights it might be a novel concept but the reality and history of it is that states failed a long time ago. It doesn't even matter if you bring a state partially back from the brink. Assholes will get elected that do what they do best.... tell other people how to live using force.

On C-SPAN today I was listening to callers call in all excited about this chick up for the new consumer protection agency. Flippin superwoman could be appointed but superwoman will not always hold the office. This is the failure of government and monopoly. There is no alternative to shitty people in monopoly power.

If people want to stay in crappy violent border states and bitch about immigration... fine... stay there, get shot.

If people want to bitch about politics and how low the numbers are instead of taking direct citizen action and geographically organize... fine... stay where you are and keep losing elections.

Alternatives have been proposed but few have expressed interest in taking direct citizen action.

 

[cindy25]

if you send home the parents, and even if 1/10 of the children stay behind as orphans (and like it or not they are, and will continue to be American citizens, regardless of any future law) it would overwhelm the system. imagine millions of hispanic orphans to take care of.

of course its unfair, and they should not be in the USA, but they are. so we have to accept it, move on, and work for the best possible deal.

 

[ProBlue33]

Does the constitution even address immigration, I don`t think you could be an illegal immigrant when the constitution was written.

How times have changed, since many of these illegals are able to circumvent income taxes, and then make use of government services, it`s a fiscal issue that contributes to more debt, which we don`t need.

I agree with Ron Paul, why reward those that break the law. And what other laws are they prepared to break while they live in America, this is a question worth asking.

 

[Fredom101]

Does the constitution even address immigration, I don`t think you could be an illegal immigrant when the constitution was written.

How times have changed, since many of these illegals are able to circumvent income taxes, and then make use of government services, it`s a fiscal issue that contributes to more debt, which we don`t need.

I agree with Ron Paul, why reward those that break the law. And what other laws are they prepared to break while they live in America, this is a question worth asking.

Most laws are absurd. If someone broke the income tax law would you say the same thing? Or the one about holding a certain kind of plant?

 

[youngbuck]

RP is correctemundo once again.

 

[Fredom101]

RP is correctemundo once again.

So you want to use coercion to prevent businesses from hiring who they please, and prevent people from traveling freely across imaginary lines?

If we don't tackle the welfare state FIRST, government will just get bigger & bigger.

 

[someperson]

RP is correctemundo once again.

RP is most certainly correct. Watch from 5:55, then watch the whole thing

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

His campaign-time, transitional plan on the borders has as much bearing on his true goals as his transitional plan to prop up Social Security by redirecting military spending.

 

[Arion45]

The great thing about Ron Paul is that he has brought many people to the philosophy of liberty. The bad about Ron Paul is that there are many people who are followers and not individuals and thus worship what he advocates. Even though they have been presented with the concepts of "self ownership" and the "non-aggression principle" they reject the ideas for those of state control of their pet projects. Thus they reject liberty and embrace evil.

When are the border advocates going to understand that aggressing against peaceful non-violent individuals is evil. Why not choose more freedom and less government? If one is truly a liberty activist does it make sense to support governmental force for victimless crimes?

Ron Paul's stance on this is morally wrong. If you want to go down the statist road with him then don't be surprised where it leads. Comprising liberty has lead to where this country is today.

Everyone has their own pet project where they think it is imperative for the government to use it force to alter people's behavior. If you support borders and the limiting of free peoples movement then you are no different philosophically from the drug warrior. Ingesting chemicals and crossing imaginary border are both non violent, victimless crimes. The enforce of these "crimes" violate the non-aggression principle.

 

[.Tom]

I voted "disagree", because I assumed it was referencing Paul's more recent position, but I completely agree with Paul's views when he ran for President as a Libertarian.

 

[someperson]

The great thing about Ron Paul is that he has brought many people to the philosophy of liberty. The bad about Ron Paul is that there are many people who are followers and not individuals and thus worship what he advocates. Even though they have been presented with the concepts of "self ownership" and the "non-aggression principle" they reject the ideas for those of state control of their pet projects. Thus they reject liberty and embrace evil.

When are the border advocates going to understand that aggressing against peaceful non-violent individuals is evil. Why not choose more freedom and less government? If one is truly a liberty activist does it make sense to support governmental force for victimless crimes?

Ron Paul's stance on this is morally wrong. If you want to go down the statist road with him then don't be surprised where it leads. Comprising liberty has lead to where this country is today.

Everyone has their own pet project where they think it is imperative for the government to use it force to alter people's behavior. If you support borders and the limiting of free peoples movement then you are no different philosophically from the drug warrior. Ingesting chemicals and crossing imaginary border are both non violent, victimless crimes. The enforce of these "crimes" violate the non-aggression principle.

Well said

Appeals to authority are never convincing arguments; however, if one chooses to make such a fallacious argument, it would be prudent to at least make sure the authority is arguing for one's position lol. That's not the case here, as Dr. Paul's true stance is, and I quote, "The free market is exactly opposite of isolationism... open borders, free trade, let the people come and go, let the goods flow over the borders..." This quote was from his 1988 Libertarian Party run. It's important to note that, even then, he referred to the concept of borders, just as he does today. However, he obviously doesn't equate borders with walls, as some individuals believe. Rather, the borders are conceptual.

In an interview with Mr. Stossel in 2008, he was asked, "You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?" He responded, "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."

From a very recent speech (Feb. 2009), he stated, "Inflationism and corporatism engenders protectionism and trade wars. It prompts scapegoating: blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities, and too often freedom itself for the predictable events and suffering that result."

As we all know, he is opposed to Real-Id and other such measures, which some misinformed individuals believe would help in ensuring the border is sealed. I think his stance is quite clear, when you put it all together: it's the same as it's always been, which I quoted above. Once again, he was against the "welfare state" for all individuals as the Libertarian Party candidate back in 1988, and he's still against the "welfare state," today. It isn't like he was in support of the coercive redistribution of wealth when he proposed that, in a transition, medicare could continue to be made available for those dependent on the system by funding it with the savings from cutting military waste.

His transitional plans do not represent his true goals; if they did, well, let's start a money bomb to promote the glory of Social Security and healthcare "for the children." No. Stop being emotionally attached to personalities; stop appealing to authorities; stop latching onto parties and labels; start focusing on ideas.

 

[cindy25]

So you want to use coercion to prevent businesses from hiring who they please, and prevent people from traveling freely across imaginary lines?

If we don't tackle the welfare state FIRST, government will just get bigger & bigger.

this should be the priority; dismantle the welfare state