Ron Paul was originally for open borders (a more principled libertarian stance)

[Fredom101]

YouTube - Ron Paul - Immigration, Communism, And Drugs 1988! - Part 4/4)

(around 3 minutes or so in)

 

[lynnf]

he did it, so can you!

guess that means there's hope for all you open border people on this forum, after all.



lynn

 

[tremendoustie]

guess that means there's hope for all you open border people on this forum, after all.



lynn

Yes, by all means, what we need is more tyranny in this country. Let's make sure nobody can live or work without begging government employees for permission, wading through oceans of bureacratic B.S, and sending them large amounds of cash. I mean, really, the more things we can put under government control, the better -- especially things as important as work and housing.

Sure, enforcing this would require a larger, more intrusive police state, but that's just the price we have to pay so we can use the govenment to jam our will down everyone else's throats.

Plus, I'm bored just running my own business. I need to run my neighbor's business as well. If he hires or rents to someone I don't approve of, or who hasn't jumped through my arbitrary hoops, I'll send the armed men to extort cash from him, and kidnap the person he hired. I bet we'll get to drag lots of peaceful people away from their families.

Lol, and he thought he owned his property, and so had the right to decide who to allow on it ... what a wuss ... didn't he know, the government owns everything now?

Beg sucka!

 

[dannno]

sucka!

Precious Roy, Precious Roy, makin lots of suckers out of girls and boys.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Aw man, why'd he changed his mind?

 

[qh4dotcom]

Aw man, why'd he changed his mind?

Because the illegals were not so addicted to welfare and government handouts before as they are now...and the economy was doing much better in 1988. I recall he has said if we has a robust economy immigration would be a non-issue.

 

[devil21]

Aw man, why'd he changed his mind?

Because Libertarians (big L, party) supports open borders. This is not necessarily shared by libertarian conservatives. He ran for the Libertarian Party in 88 so his position at the time was more in line with that party than the Republican party's current stance. Ron's never really been a hard ass on the border issue even recently. In debates he's stated the problem is the welfare state and anchor babies as the biggest reason for the illegal invasion. Take away those two "benefits" and illegal immigration goes way down. I think he's right, as usual.

 

[Agorism]

Paul is not in favor of actually enforcing immigration law though.

So long as people are working freely and doing their own thing, no big deal.

 

[silus]

Newsflash! Ron Paul is STILL for open borders, just not in a welfare state.

 

[devil21]

Paul is not in favor of actually enforcing immigration law though.

So long as people are working freely and doing their own thing, no big deal.

Making shit up again eh Agorism?

http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/ron-paul/12/immigration/10/

Ron Paul on Immigration

If we reward lawbreakers who enter this country illegally with citizenship, then any new laws Congress might pass likewise can be ignored. Reform must begin with a new mentality that immigration laws will be enforced.

 

[Kludge]

Precious Roy, Precious Roy, makin lots of suckers out of girls and boys.

Second-best show ever aired.

 

[torchbearer]

ron still is an open borders guy, but only after ending the welfare state. which makes sense.

 

[The Patriot]

Glad he changed his stance, or he wouldn't have my vote.

 

[South Park Fan]

Glad he changed his stance, or he wouldn't have my vote.

You really have the awful, tax-hiking Jan Brewer's campaign site in your sig just because she pandered to the nativist crowd?

 

[dannno]

Second-best show ever aired.

Second to... Trailer Park Boys??


If so I might have to agree with you on both counts

 

[MN Patriot]

Yes, by all means, what we need is more tyranny in this country. Let's make sure nobody can live or work without begging government employees for permission, wading through oceans of bureacratic B.S, and sending them large amounds of cash. I mean, really, the more things we can put under government control, the better -- especially things as important as work and housing.

Sure, enforcing this would require a larger, more intrusive police state, but that's just the price we have to pay so we can use the govenment to jam our will down everyone else's throats.

Plus, I'm bored just running my own business. I need to run my neighbor's business as well. If he hires or rents to someone I don't approve of, or who hasn't jumped through my arbitrary hoops, I'll send the armed men to extort cash from him, and kidnap the person he hired. I bet we'll get to drag lots of peaceful people away from their families.

Lol, and he thought he owned his property, and so had the right to decide who to allow on it ... what a wuss ... didn't he know, the government owns everything now?

Beg sucka!

Gotta keep those Nazi fascists in line. Preposterous idea, enforcing the nations borders.

Seriously, if we are going to have a Federal government, with a Constitution that is designed to protect our liberties and defend us from foreign aggressors, shouldn't we have a border that defines where other nations stop and our nation starts?

Just letting anyone in is foolish, especially in this "progressive" age where anyone has the "right" to anything they want at other people's expense.

What next, let the Chinese army march into our nation unheeded? After all, they would only be coming here to enjoy our prosperity and liberties, by taking them away from us.

If the entire world was libertarian, then have open borders. Until then defend them against ILLEGAL immigrants.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Gotta keep those Nazi fascists in line. Preposterous idea, enforcing the nations borders.

Seriously, if we are going to have a Federal government, with a Constitution that is designed to protect our liberties and defend us from foreign aggressors, shouldn't we have a border that defines where other nations stop and our nation starts?

Just letting anyone in is foolish, especially in this "progressive" age where anyone has the "right" to anything they want at other people's expense.

What next, let the Chinese army march into our nation unheeded? After all, they would only be coming here to enjoy our prosperity and liberties, by taking them away from us.

If the entire world was libertarian, then have open borders. Until then defend them against ILLEGAL immigrants.

I'm a libertarian anarchist and oppose open borders. Private property is the key to solving this whole mess. Socialized borders and land begets misery everywhere, just like it does here.

Be more careful with sweeping generalizations, young one.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, by all means, what we need is more tyranny in this country. Let's make sure nobody can live or work without begging government employees for permission, wading through oceans of bureacratic B.S, and sending them large amounds of cash. I mean, really, the more things we can put under government control, the better -- especially things as important as work and housing.

Sure, enforcing this would require a larger, more intrusive police state, but that's just the price we have to pay so we can use the govenment to jam our will down everyone else's throats.

Plus, I'm bored just running my own business. I need to run my neighbor's business as well. If he hires or rents to someone I don't approve of, or who hasn't jumped through my arbitrary hoops, I'll send the armed men to extort cash from him, and kidnap the person he hired. I bet we'll get to drag lots of peaceful people away from their families.

Lol, and he thought he owned his property, and so had the right to decide who to allow on it ... what a wuss ... didn't he know, the government owns everything now?

Beg sucka!

Nicely done, young Skywalker.

 

[tremendoustie]

Gotta keep those Nazi fascists in line. Preposterous idea, enforcing the nations borders.

I think we should respect the property rights of individuals -- this contradicts the idea that the governemnt gets to decide who can be here and who can't.

Depending how such "enforcement" is supposed to be accomplished, the implications can range from mild abuse and waste to total police state facism.

Seriously, if we are going to have a Federal government, with a Constitution that is designed to protect our liberties and defend us from foreign aggressors,

I don't think the constitution has been very effective at restraining the central state. I'm not sure it's possible to restrain a central state ... at least not without an absolutely extrordinarily high and sustained level of principled citizen involvement.

Frankly, once you've instituted a central, just about all powerful state, you've pretty much destroyed liberty anyway. It's kinda like disarming everyone in a room, and then dropping one giant gun into it for the most power hungry meglomaniacs to wrestle over, and use on everyone else.

shouldn't we have a border that defines where other nations stop and our nation starts?

I don't really mind if you define a border. Heck, even without a central, national state, I'm sure the governments of Canada and Mexico would need to recognize where their influence and control end. Plus, borders can mark cultural areas too -- not just political designations.

What I have a problem with is going after people who aren't harming anyone, simply because the go across the border, live, or work, without government permission.

Just letting anyone in is foolish, especially in this "progressive" age where anyone has the "right" to anything they want at other people's expense.

Now there's your problem -- welfarism. That's what we need to end. Heck, I'd even support a bill to end all benefits to so called "illegals", if we couldn't get rid of the whole thing entirely.

What next, let the Chinese army march into our nation unheeded? After all, they would only be coming here to enjoy our prosperity and liberties, by taking them away from us.

Are they attacking people, or attempting to do so?

Of course noone has a right to harm other persons or their property, or violate their liberties, and if they do, they should be stopped.

If the entire world was libertarian, then have open borders. Until then defend them against ILLEGAL immigrants.

What you're saying is this: Give the central state absolute control over who may live or work, on anyone's property. That IS tyranny, and is anti liberty.

How about we let property owners control who they allow on their own land -- but, of course, stop them or anyone if they attempt to harm others? People deserve to be treated as individuals. I don't want to go attack people just because they have the same skin color, language, or region of origin as someone who has attacked others.

If we were to use that critera, we should probably deport all of NY city

 

[Peace&Freedom]

What I've found on the issue is the open borders Libertarians talk abstractly about private property and freedom of movement, and do not acknowledge any Libertarian concept of free immigration with protected borders. Meanwhile, the rest of us are looking at the actual scoreboard of freedom, and have noticed we got more government force, more welfare state, less private property rights and less freedom of movement in the last several decades when more open borders immigration and amnesty policies/laws were adopted. Paul noticed too, and accordingly then developed a more complete libertarian approach to the issue.