Ron Paul's immigration position from 2007

Swordsmyth said:
It's called bumping.
Thanks for helping.
Click to expand...

Try this. Type "bump".

And as you know, Ron Paul changed his position since then.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la...-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201-story.html

“I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they’re the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state,” Paul told the group. “In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

“Now there’s a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants,” he continued. “You say, no not immigrants, it’s just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy.”

Paul said he’s not one of those politicians who believes that “barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems.” That’s not, he said, the American way. And he doesn’t think that a national identification card is the way to go.
Click to expand...
 
Zippyjuan said:
Try this. Type "bump".
Click to expand...
I'll bump how I please and in this case I want to keep the relevant information on the current page.

Zippyjuan said:
And as you know, Ron Paul changed his position since then.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la...-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201-story.html
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant to the point of this thread which clearly states the date for the position recorded.

This thread is to keep the anarchists from claiming those who supported and still support Ron's position from his campaign don't belong.

And his position hasn't changed as much as you are trying to imply.
 
Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:







  • [*=left]Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    [*=left]Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    [*=left]No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    [*=left]No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    [*=left]End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    [*=left]Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.





http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.
 
What is Ron Paul's position today?

“I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they’re the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state,” Paul told the group. “In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

“Now there’s a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants,” he continued. “You say, no not immigrants, it’s just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy.”

Paul said he’s not one of those politicians who believes that “barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems.” That’s not, he said, the American way. And he doesn’t think that a national identification card is the way to go.
Click to expand...

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la...-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201-story.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: PAF
Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:








  • [*=left]Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    [*=left]Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    [*=left]No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    [*=left]No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    [*=left]End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    [*=left]Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.






http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.
 
What is Ron Paul's position today?

“I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they’re the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state,” Paul told the group. “In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

“Now there’s a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants,” he continued. “You say, no not immigrants, it’s just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy.”

Paul said he’s not one of those politicians who believes that “barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems.” That’s not, he said, the American way. And he doesn’t think that a national identification card is the way to go.
Click to expand...

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la...-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201-story.html


https://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

Give illegals limbo status: a green card with an asterisk

Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.156 , Apr 19, 2011

Sending 12M illegals home won't & shouldn't happen

Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws. The first choice--sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home--isn't going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.153 , Apr 19, 2011

If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem

Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.

A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important

Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?
PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:





  • [*=left]Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    [*=left]Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    [*=left]No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    [*=left]No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    [*=left]End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    [*=left]Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.



http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.
 
Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:









  • [*=left]Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    [*=left]Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    [*=left]No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    [*=left]No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    [*=left]End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    [*=left]Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.







http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.
 
Swordsmyth said:
Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:





  • [*=left]Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    [*=left]Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    [*=left]No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    [*=left]No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    [*=left]End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    [*=left]Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.





http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26





We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country

Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law.

No amnesty.

End birthright citizenship

current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity.
Click to expand...

In the words of Elwood Blues: "It wasn't lies...it was bullshit".
 
If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem

Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.

A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.
Click to expand...

He's obviously wrong about this...
 
What is Ron Paul's position today?

“I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they’re the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state,” Paul told the group. “In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

“Now there’s a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants,” he continued. “You say, no not immigrants, it’s just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy.”

Paul said he’s not one of those politicians who believes that “barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems.” That’s not, he said, the American way. And he doesn’t think that a national identification card is the way to go.
Click to expand...

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la...-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201-story.html


https://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

Give illegals limbo status: a green card with an asterisk

Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.156 , Apr 19, 2011

Sending 12M illegals home won't & shouldn't happen

Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws. The first choice--sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home--isn't going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.153 , Apr 19, 2011

If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem

Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.

A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important

Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?
PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:










  • [*=left]Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    [*=left]Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    [*=left]No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    [*=left]No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    [*=left]End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    [*=left]Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.








http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.
 
tfurrh said:
Edit. I found the border security one.

RP-Immigration-SJim.jpg


For comparison here's the foreign policy one:


RP-Defense-SJim.jpg
Click to expand...

RP-Marriage-SJim.jpg
 
What is Ron Paul's position today?

“I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they’re the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state,” Paul told the group. “In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

“Now there’s a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants,” he continued. “You say, no not immigrants, it’s just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy.”

Paul said he’s not one of those politicians who believes that “barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems.” That’s not, he said, the American way. And he doesn’t think that a national identification card is the way to go.
Click to expand...

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la...-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201-story.html


https://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

Give illegals limbo status: a green card with an asterisk

Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.156 , Apr 19, 2011

Sending 12M illegals home won't & shouldn't happen

Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws. The first choice--sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home--isn't going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.153 , Apr 19, 2011

If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem

Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.

A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important

Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?
PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.
Click to expand...
 
From reading this thread it seems like we have two opposing camps:

Group 1: "Hey we love our country, and I think we need a border that is enforced for our nation to exist"
Group 2: "Fuck the police, open borders ftw, Im more libertarian than you you statist trash! Lets play retarded word games that amount to nonsense, and make sure we never win or accomplish anything so that we can sit in our basements and whine forever!!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Immigration-Control Tyranny
Replies
4
Views
93
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
Immigration-Control Tyranny
Replies
11
Views
98
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
Immigration Control Threatens the Rule of Law
Replies
14
Views
202
Firestarter
Firestarter
PAF
Trump Administration Says It’ll Pay Immigrants in the US Illegally $1,000 to Leave the Country
Replies
7
Views
57
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
PAF
American Doctor Receives Email from Immigration Officials Telling Her to Leave the Country Immediately
2
Replies
26
Views
217
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Back
Top