Ron Paul's immigration position from 2007

The problem what you take soundbytes of Ron Paul speaking you only listen to what you want to. If you actually looked at his platform that was posted you would understand that Ron Paul is for both things. He is for making sure people don't come here illegally in order to become citizens if you look at his ideas entirely. You want to look at where he describes parts of what he is wanting to do and not everything. Yes he wants a reformed immigration system where they don't get welfare benefits, but he has called for securing the border before immigration law is fixed. Rand has said the same, the only difference is because Trump said it and didn't explain something that would take 20 minutes to explain you don't like it.

You have it backwards. I'm the one who's not doing that. If you want to give an honest portrayal of Ron Paul's immigration policies, you can't just cherry pick sound bytes. You have to look at all of what he's said over the years.
 
Notice that Ron Paul never said that he would stop people who lacked papers from coming here.

This is an example of just what I was saying. You see Ron Paul say one thing, and in your mind, because of the assumptions you make, you think he means something else.

He has said it, when he ran for president. He just thinks that real immigration reform can get passed so that you don't need to as well. He also has said physically stopping them from coming here before we get reform is necessary, he said that in the debates, he said that on his policy page when he ran for president.
 
You are just cherry picking now. How do you stop the poeple from coming here who don't have papers without closing the border entirely if you don't ask for the parpers? How do you physically stop illegal immigration into this country if you can't ask people to verify if they are legal. Maybe if you can get the rest of Ron Paul's immigration platform passed where he says that there is no more birthright citizenship and welfare and enforcing visa rules. Thats where you get the system where you don't have to verify if people are legal when they come over the border because they will stop coming here by the million

Ending birth right "citizenship" and stopping the welfare/incentives would in fact make a reduction - WITHOUT violating the Bill of Rights. Are you suggesting that Ron advocates tossing the Bill of Rights aside to accomplish a "goal"? Are you suggesting that Ron advocates "papers please" and physical barriers, and stopping people from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Are you suggesting that Ron does not understand the $1 BILLION *per day* economy that the border contributes? Are you suggesting that Ron advocates the elimination of Contract Rights in order to turn businesses in who do not "comply" with the Fed.gov?

I have stated many times before, one either understands liberty from within, or they do not.
 
You have it backwards. I'm the one who's not doing that. If you want to give an honest portrayal of Ron Paul's immigration policies, you can't just cherry pick sound bytes. You have to look at all of what he's said over the years.

He doesn't change policy over the years. The only thing he has changed his position on is the death penalty. Thats what he said in 2011, after he ran for president and said that without immigration reform we need to secure the border and control entry into our country.
 
Ending birth right "citizenship" and stopping the welfare/incentives would in fact make a reduction - WITHOUT violating the Bill of Rights. Are you suggesting that Ron advocates tossing the Bill of Rights aside to accomplish a "goal"? Are you suggesting that Ron advocates "papers please" and physical barriers, and stopping people from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Are you suggesting that Ron does not understand the $1 BILLION *per day* economy that the border contributes? Are you suggesting that Ron advocates the elimination of Contract Rights in order to turn businesses in who do not "comply" with the Fed.gov?

I have stated many times before, one either understands liberty from within, or they do not.

Yeah but that is impossible with todays congress. That's why in 2008 he said before immigration reform is done we need to do whatever it takes, specifically his policy said "control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals."
 
He doesn't change policy over the years.

I agree.

Therefore, it's just as invisible said up above: You can't take those sound bytes and extrapolate from them that Ron Paul was for a policy that he has explicitly said he opposes over and over again.
 
"We must do whatever it takes"

Notice he didn't say, "We must do whatever nikcers thinks it takes."

You have to allow Ron Paul himself to explain what policies he has in mind. And he's given us plenty of explanations of that over the years.
 
I agree.

Therefore, it's just as invisible said up above: You can't take those sound bytes and extrapolate from them that Ron Paul was for a policy that he has explicitly said he opposes over and over again.

No i look at his policy page when he ran for president and it was very clear you are the one taking soundbytes when he talks about immigration reform and ignoring the dozens of times he has said that before we change the entire immigration law we need to secure the border. The very same position Rand took when he ran for president.
 
Yeah but that is impossible with todays congress. That's why in 2008 he said before immigration reform is done we need to do whatever it takes, specifically his policy said "control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals."

NO. You don't fall on principle "just because". Otherwise we will CONTINUE to lose our freedoms and then that border will be useless. To defend our "border" we must preserve what we stand for - Freedom and Liberty.

Ron has also stated many times that politicians are NOT the answer, but that we must reach the hearts and minds of the American people.

Sep 7, 2011




Apr 20, 2017
At 3:45 mark




Jan 8, 2019

 
No i look at his policy page when he ran for president and it was very clear you are the one taking soundbytes when he talks about immigration reform and ignoring the dozens of times he has said that before we change the entire immigration law we need to secure the border. The very same position Rand took when he ran for president.

Please provide a quote of me saying something that does that.
 
Notice he didn't say, "We must do whatever nikcers thinks it takes."

You have to allow Ron Paul himself to explain what policies he has in mind. And he's given us plenty of explanations of that over the years.

He specifically said do whatever it takes to "control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals." What would you say is the way to do that without changing the immigration policy? Did his policy contradict itself or did he run on securing the border before we change immigration laws? That's not cherry picking, you are looking at stuff he has said in soundbyte interviews where he is asked specific questions about specific things like immigration reform ,and not looking at the fact that he ran on securing the border before immigration reform, just like Rand Paul has.
 
No i look at his policy page when he ran for president and it was very clear you are the one taking soundbytes when he talks about immigration reform and ignoring the dozens of times he has said that before we change the entire immigration law we need to secure the border. The very same position Rand took when he ran for president.

Then you agree with me about what his position is. So what are you arguing about?
 
He specifically said do whatever it takes to "control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals." What would you say is the way to do that without changing the immigration policy?

We're talking about what Ron Paul's position is. The question is what would *he* say, not what would you or I say.

And we already know that. For example, we know that he's against a border wall. You can't take this sound byte saying "whatever it takes" and pretend he meant something that he has explicitly said over and over again that he opposes.

You just said yourself that you don't think his position has changed. If you really believe that, then you have to agree that he has always opposed a border wall.
 
Please provide a quote of me saying something that does that.

You are the one cherry picking because you are not looking at the fact that Ron has ran on physically controlling people who come here and reforming the immigration platform and specifically controlling people who come here before changing the immigration platform. I can take three different soundbytes of him explaining his entire views on immigration when he is given 30 seconds to explain his position on specific questions being asked but that is just it. You can't explain any well thought out plan in 30 seconds, if you can only answer specific questions you are being asked by the press. You only get to explain the answer to the question they are asking otherwise they can spin what you say to mean something else entirely. Ron Paul has never contradicted himself or changed his policy on anything but the death penalty. You are the one saying Ron Paul contradicted himself because you don't look at his entire stance on the issue, you are just looking at his stance on immigration reform and not looking at what he has said needs to happen before we do immigration reform. You are pretending like he never said that you need to secure the border before changing immigration laws. He has said this because the rinos and democrats have been wanting to change the immigration law so that it would encourage more illegal immigration.
 
Last edited:
You are the one cherry picking because you are not looking at the fact that Ron has ran on physically controlling people who come here and reforming the immigration platform and specifically controlling people who come here before changing the immigration platform. I can take three different soundbytes of him explaining his entire views on immigration when he is given 30 seconds to explain his position on specific questions being asked but that is just it. You can't explain any well thought out plan in 30 seconds, if you can only answer specific questions you are being asked by the press. You only get to explain the answer to the question they are asking otherwise they can spin what you say to mean something else entirely. Ron Paul has never contradicted himself or changed his policy on anything but the death penalty. You are the one saying Ron Paul contradictted himself because you don't look at his entire stance on the issue, you are just looking at his stance on immigration reform and not looking at what he has said needs to happen before we do immigration reform. You are pretending like he never said that you need to secure the border before changing immigration laws. He has said this because the rinos and democrats have been wanting to change the immigration law so that it would encourage more illegal immigration.

If I'm doing that, then why can't you find a quote of me doing that?
 
Monday January 30, 2017

rp-weekly-button.jpg


"Just one week in office, President Trump is already following through on his pledge to address illegal immigration. His January 25th executive order called for the construction of a wall along the entire length of the US-Mexico border. While he is right to focus on the issue, there are several reasons why his proposed solution will unfortunately not lead us anywhere closer to solving the problem.

First, the wall will not work. Texas already started building a border fence about ten years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land through the use of eminent domain, and in the end the problem of drug and human smuggling was not solved.

Second, the wall will be expensive. The wall is estimated to cost between 12 and 15 billion dollars. You can bet it will be more than that. President Trump has claimed that if the Mexican government doesn’t pay for it, he will impose a 20 percent duty on products imported from Mexico. Who will pay this tax? Ultimately, the American consumer, as the additional costs will be passed on. This will of course hurt the poorest Americans the most.

Third, building a wall ignores the real causes of illegal border crossings into the United States. Though President Trump is right to prioritize the problem of border security, he misses the point on how it can be done effectively and at an actual financial benefit to the country rather than a huge economic drain.

The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear: remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.

The various taxpayer-funded programs that benefit illegal immigrants in the United States, such as direct financial transfers, medical benefits, food assistance, and education, cost an estimated $100 billion dollars per year. That is a significant burden on citizens and legal residents. The promise of free money, free food, free education, and free medical care if you cross the border illegally is a powerful incentive for people to do so. It especially makes no sense for the United States government to provide these services to those who are not in the US legally.

Likewise, the 40 year war on drugs has produced no benefit to the American people at a great cost. It is estimated that since President Nixon declared a war on drugs, the US has spent more than a trillion dollars to fight what is a losing battle. That is because just as with the welfare magnet, there is an enormous incentive to smuggle drugs into the United States.

We already know the effect that ending the war on drugs has on illegal smuggling: as more and more US states decriminalize marijuana for medical and recreational uses, marijuana smuggling from Mexico to the US has dropped by 50 percent from 2010.

Finally, the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico must be taken seriously, however once again we must soberly consider why they may seek to do us harm. We have been dropping bombs on the Middle East since at least 1990. Last year President Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs. Thousands of civilians have been killed in US drone attacks. The grand US plan to “remake” the Middle East has produced only misery, bloodshed, and terrorism. Ending this senseless intervention will go a long way toward removing the incentive to attack the United States.

I believe it is important for the United States to have secure borders, but unfortunately President Trump’s plan to build a wall will end up costing a fortune while ignoring the real problem of why people cross the borders illegally. They will keep coming as long as those incentives remain."


http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...30/a-better-solution-than-trump-s-border-wall
 
Back
Top