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

[WhiteHaven]

I agree with him.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I have no idea. But I think it's apples and oranges to compare the conditions surrounding the civil war with troops going to man a frontier garrison in the late 18th century. I don't recall southern states complaining about Andrew Jackson sending in troops to round up Indians and send them on the trail of tears for example.

Tear of Trails is a bad example because states were the primary actors. Adams set out to use the federal government to protect Indians from Georgia but when Georgia raised a militia the cause was abandoned and deemed not worth starting a civil war over. Jackson simply had no intention at all to protect Indians from Georgia or any other state and impede relocation treaties. The Georgia gold rush and trespassing on Indian land was a catalyst to the Marshal ruling and second treaty leading to states organizing the militias used during the Trail of Tears.

My understanding is there was not U.S. territory outside of state borders during that period.

Florida was purchased in 1819, acquired in 1821, and became a state in 1845. It was federal territory at the time.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I don't understand people who want to protect people who have broken a very reasonable law,
under the guise of freedom.

Freedom always has it's limits, I am not free to steal my neighbors goods out of his house for example.
Take that one step further, I don't have the freedom to steal employment opportunities illegally either. People just don't seem to think of it in those terms.

No one owes you a job and you do not have a right to one. If it is not owed to you it can not be stolen from you.

You only have a natural right to contract which is constitutionally guaranteed in that states shall not impair the obligation of contracts.

 

[ProBlue33]

No one owes you a job and you do not have a right to one. If it is not owed to you it can not be stolen from you.

You only have a natural right to contract which is constitutionally guaranteed in that states shall not impair the obligation of contracts.

I disagree with your logic.

If there are 500 jobs in a town with a citizenry of 600 but 300 illegals come into town, willing to work for less and compete for those jobs ILLEGALLY then they they are stealing a standard of basic living from the citizenry.

But if they come into town legally then it is totally fair. They have every right to compete and if they want to take less to get work that's cool too because it's fair market value, and it's all legal.

My issue is not foreign workers coming into America, it is an issue of legal control, can we handle 100,000 new citizens this year or maybe if the economy is doing really good we can handle a million. If it sucks like it does right now, maybe we restrict it even more.
And a persons skill set needs to be looked at as well, and control where they go at first until they become citizens, maybe we need more surgeons in North Dakota, and a Mexican surgeon want to immigrate, we say ok but we want you to go here until you have your citizenship, then you can go anywhere.
Control it to benefit America, not harm or degrade it.

 

[Danke]

I disagree with your logic.

If there are 500 jobs in a town with a citizenry of 600 but 300 illegals come into town, willing to work for less and compete for those jobs ILLEGALLY then they they are stealing a standard of basic living from the citizenry.

But if they come into town legally then it is totally fair. They have every right to compete and if they want to take less to get work that's cool too because it's fair market value, and it's all legal.

What makes one legal or not?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I disagree with your logic.

Which part? That you have no right to a job or if something is not owed it can't be stolen?

If there are 500 jobs in a town with a citizenry of 600 but 300 illegals come into town, willing to work for less and compete for those jobs ILLEGALLY then they they are stealing a standard of basic living from the citizenry.

Even if I accept the entire New Deal as constitutional at face value (which a lot of people around here don't and often talk about how much the New Deal reeks of running afoul with original intent).... this is the part you are not addressing.

The INS only deals with entry and treatment of aliens once they are in. If an alien trespasses a state border and states are not policing their own borders... tough titty. Congress, federal code, or INS is not involved until an alien commits a crime or some removable offense once they are in. Furthermore if you read the rather lengthy citation involving a California case in the other thread it addresses instances where Congress has addressed farmers using illegal aliens.

But if they come into town legally then it is totally fair. They have every right to compete and if they want to take less to get work that's cool too because it's fair market value, and it's all legal.

Does your state have signage on the border directing aliens to federal customs points of entry and what the requirements are?

Does your state police trespassing along state borders escorting trespassers to federal customs points of entry?

Are immigrants supposed to be born with this knowledge?

If you do not post no trespassing signs on your property and leave the front door of your house open are you going to criminally persecute an uninvited guest for being uninvited?

My issue is not foreign workers coming into America, it is an issue of legal control, can we handle 100,000 new citizens this year or maybe if the economy is doing really good we can handle a million. If it sucks like it does right now, maybe we restrict it even more.

Quotas are an isolationist component of the New Deal and restrict the free flow of goods or people based on nationality. If you are ok with isolationist policy and government having a power then you must be ok with people you don't like getting elected and using the power in ways you don't like. Once power is created and backed up with the monopoly of force whoever gets elected gets to use the power according to their wishes. That is the way the broad power game works and U.S. history has repeatedly demonstrated minority views are on the short end of the broad power stick.

And a persons skill set needs to be looked at as well, and control where they go at first until they become citizens, maybe we need more surgeons in North Dakota, and a Mexican surgeon want to immigrate, we say ok but we want you to go here until you have your citizenship, then you can go anywhere.
Control it to benefit America, not harm or degrade it.

Since it appears you favor a centrally planned coercive utopia, I would like to know what you are basing a power to coerce immigrants on. The federal government only admits entry into federal jurisdiction or deports. I am also curious to know what you base infringing peoples natural right to contract on.
.

 

[ProBlue33]

What makes one legal or not?

Whatever the law is, which can be changed.

I am not arguing whether the law is good or bad, that is irrelevant, it just needs to be followed so that everybody has an even chance.

Reform is needed as the current system isn't working for America

 

[ProBlue33]

Oh so then according to Live_free_or_Die we should just have a free for all, open the doors and because of "freedom" we should just let everybody come into America with no controls at all.

Or maybe I am am misunderstanding your posts.

I have put my idea's out there.
What would you do to fix it, or would just let it go on the way it is?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I disagree with your logic.

If there are 500 jobs in a town with a citizenry of 600 but 300 illegals come into town, willing to work for less and compete for those jobs ILLEGALLY then they they are stealing a standard of basic living from the citizenry.

But if they come into town legally then it is totally fair. They have every right to compete and if they want to take less to get work that's cool too because it's fair market value, and it's all legal.

My issue is not foreign workers coming into America, it is an issue of legal control, can we handle 100,000 new citizens this year or maybe if the economy is doing really good we can handle a million. If it sucks like it does right now, maybe we restrict it even more.
And a persons skill set needs to be looked at as well, and control where they go at first until they become citizens, maybe we need more surgeons in North Dakota, and a Mexican surgeon want to immigrate, we say ok but we want you to go here until you have your citizenship, then you can go anywhere.
Control it to benefit America, not harm or degrade it.

You sound like the central planners in the CPSU & Gosplan, in fact, you are pretty much indistinguishable from them.

PS: No one has a "right" to a standard of living. You have a right to life, liberty, and property and that is it.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I have put my idea's out there.
What would you do to fix it, or would just let it go on the way it is?

Domestic violence must be addressed ASAP. It is absurd states have allowed domestic violence to continue unchecked. It doesn't take some far fetched claim of invasion undeclared by Congress to solve a domestic violence problem.

Regarding borders, personally I prefer the free market and the free flow of goods and people. I prefer addressing actual problems such as subsidies, welfare, birthright citizenship, etc. I do not prefer creating bigger government to address the symptoms of problems (ie. people traversing a border).

I do support self government and there is a strong Constitutional argument friendly to self government at a state level for individual states enforcing trespasses of state borders or possibly more draconian and discriminatory measures defining eligibility for residency.

I could tolerate Ron Paul using the military to secure borders under a transitional plan to address welfare and subsidies because I would trust Ron Paul at his face value word. If anyone else wants to put the military on the border I know the shit will never ever ever ever ever go away. It will become a permanent expense for Americans like every other agency ever created and be used to advocate more government intervention or protectionism restricting the flow of goods or people.

 

[ProBlue33]

You sound like the central planners in the CPSU & Gosplan, in fact, you are pretty much indistinguishable from them.

PS: No one has a "right" to a standard of living. You have a right to life, liberty, and property and that is it.

Interesting because I agree with Ron Paul on many different points, and disagree with him on very few, however I too have some of my own idea's, where I feel government does need to have some authority. I simply do not trust the greedy corporatist society that has evolved into the different major industrial corporate complexes. All too often I have seen them shaft the common worker.

As to a standard of living, a solid middle class with no really poor people or really rich people produces better civilizations.

America is hurting so badly because it's middle class is getting crushed by this economic system. Part of the problem is tax inflation on the middle class. I believe that households under $100,000 a year should pay no taxes, for at least 5 years, so the middle class can be rebuilt in America. If much of the former middle class continues on poor, America will never recover economically.

 

[Arion45]

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.

I am glad you posted this maybe those who follow will now at least get on the right page.

 

[Arion45]

WTF are you and Arion45 doing on Ron Paul Forums if you think Ron Paul sucks so much? Just wondering.

I agree with him on 98% of the issues he advocates. But I will not sheepishly go along with the crowd if my principles are violated.

 

[Arion45]

Interesting because I agree with Ron Paul on many different points, and disagree with him on very few, however I too have some of my own idea's, where I feel government does need to have some authority. I simply do not trust the greedy corporatist society that has evolved into the different major industrial corporate complexes. All too often I have seen them shaft the common worker.

As to a standard of living, a solid middle class with no really poor people or really rich people produces better civilizations.

America is hurting so badly because it's middle class is getting crushed by this economic system. Part of the problem is tax inflation on the middle class. I believe that households under $100,000 a year should pay no taxes, for at least 5 years, so the middle class can be rebuilt in America. If much of the former middle class continues on poor, America will never recover economically.

Ask yourself this, what creates a corporation and where does it get it's power and immunity from? Answer this and you will see why you are wrong on using the government for your pet project.

 

[Promontorium]

Hilarious, once again this poll shows that the minority is exceptionally loud.

Austrian Econ and Feedom 101: both anti-border anarchists were immediate to denounce and basically lie.

How many threads have they started or hijacked to ONLY talk about their anti-border minority opinion? One thread points out a differing opinion and they act like this divisiveness is tearing us apart. It is, you anarchists are in the minority yet every other god damn thread has you spamming your opinion. You are hypocrites.


There's a term for what you are doing, disinformation. You know we've heard what you have to say, but instead of having any respect for others, you few come up with new spins every day, ironically, collectively organized to spam every thread possible denouncing and insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you. In another of your organized minority opinion threads acting like representatives of all freedom lovers, you literally said anyone who wants border security is a statist and anti-freedom. That Ron Paul would be a statist and anti-freedom can't be a connection you'd let anyone make, so you spam spam spam.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Hilarious, once again this poll shows that the minority is exceptionally loud.

Austrian Econ and Feedom 101: both anti-border anarchists were immediate to denounce and basically lie.

How many threads have they started or hijacked to ONLY talk about their anti-border minority opinion? One thread points out a differing opinion and they act like this divisiveness is tearing us apart. It is, you anarchists are in the minority yet every other god damn thread has you spamming your opinion. You are hypocrites.


There's a term for what you are doing, disinformation. You know we've heard what you have to say, but instead of having any respect for others, you few come up with new spins every day, ironically, collectively organized to spam every thread possible denouncing and insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you. In another of your organized minority opinion threads acting like representatives of all freedom lovers, you literally said anyone who wants border security is a statist and anti-freedom. That Ron Paul would be a statist and anti-freedom can't be a connection you'd let anyone make, so you spam spam spam.

Yes, I have hijacked a thread on immigration, by talking about...immigration. Brilliant analysis. I think you should read the thread, and see what your supporters are promoting. So far we have the institutionalization of the Gosplan in the US, someone who is asserting also that by virtue of being American you have a right to a vague "middle class standard of living", you have others perfectly fine with erecting a Berlin Wall on the southern border, you have others perfectly fine with throwing businessman in jail because of hiring someone with no papers from a bureaucrat, and that to you my friend is liberty....

I am also waiting to hear what I lied about. I don't think you could have thrown in more unsubstantive ad homs in one post if you tried harder. Less attacking character, more attacking positions! I still haven't heard how Deborah or any other border "securists" plan on actually securing the border, enforcing immigration law, dealing with the 10-20million that are all ready here, etc. They seem to believe that it is actually not the Federal Reserve, and economic policy that is ruining this country, but illegal immigrants, and what countries we do let trade with us (albeit, not free-trade, nevertheless it is preferrable to their solution -- erecting tariff walls).

Continue on though.

PS: Besides as I pointed out in my first post in this thread, this shit has been re-hashed to death! I think this was the one of the longest threads on the issue (And those for liberty were at 32% ).

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=145943&highlight=Immigration

 

[jmdrake]

Tear of Trails is a bad example because states were the primary actors. Adams set out to use the federal government to protect Indians from Georgia but when Georgia raised a militia the cause was abandoned and deemed not worth starting a civil war over. Jackson simply had no intention at all to protect Indians from Georgia or any other state and impede relocation treaties. The Georgia gold rush and trespassing on Indian land was a catalyst to the Marshal ruling and second treaty leading to states organizing the militias used during the Trail of Tears.

I think it's a great example. Arizona doesn't want Mexicans coming across the border willy nilly and Georgia didn't want Indians remaining in their state. In both cases you have state interest and federal action coinciding. I know of no elected official in Arizona or any border state making a states rights claim that the federal government should quit patrolling the borders.

Florida was purchased in 1819, acquired in 1821, and became a state in 1845. It was federal territory at the time.

Ummm....I was referencing to the garrisons mentioned in the Federalist papers. Florida had not been purchased then. The constitution hadn't even been written. So I'm not sure why you leaped ahead to the next century and started talking about Florida. Do you have any evidence of an "federal territory" before there was even a federal government?

 

[tjeffersonsghost]

I disagree with Ron Paul. We dont need an east german style wall or "troops" all over our border. RP knows his history which is why Im surprised he would come to this conclusion.

 

[constituent]

I know of no elected official in Arizona or any border state making a states rights claim that the federal government should quit patrolling the borders.

Which in no way changes the fact that the federal immigration regulatory regime represents an unconstitutional power grab, nor does it change the fact that individuals have their rights, allegedly protected by the constitution, violated every day in the name of protecting you from some Mexicans.

Meanwhile, you cheer and chant "restore the republic!" "for liberty!" and "constitution! constitution!"



Folks, welcome to 1984! (again)

 

[FrankRep]

Which in no way changes the fact that the federal immigration regulatory regime represents an unconstitutional power grab, nor does it change the fact that individuals have their rights, allegedly protected by the constitution, violated every day in the name of protecting you from some Mexicans.

How are Immigration Laws unconstitutional?