Tom Tancredo No Longer Supports Rand

Ron was not pro-amnesty and was against open borders. He just did not believe it was too smart to strip our own selves of our liberties in the quest to curtail illegal immigration. Rather, he thought it wiser to remove the incentives. Everything Dr. Paul recommended was for the purpose of defending both our liberty and our national sovereignty and there is not anything about it that runs counter to paleo-conservatism.

Rand is a lot stronger on the issue of border security than Ron was. Ron opposed the fence and voted against multiple border security bills while he was in the house, including putting our troops along the border. I don't care nearly as much about what we do with the 11 million illegals who are here as I care about whether we secure the borders right now. Rand is the only one with a plan to fully secure the border right now, which is why I don't have a problem with his plan.
 
Tancredo did a pretty good job in 2010. He lost to Hickenlooper 51-38-11 with a really bad Republican refusing to drop out gaining 11%.
 
Immigrants are not the same thing as Illegal Aliens. We are a nation of laws. The people who broke our laws should not be rewarded for so doing, while those who did not are penalized for following them.

LibertyEagle, could you share your thoughts on Jim Crow laws and those people who broke them, such as Rosa Parks and MLK? Do you think it was unfair to reward these unapologetic lawbreakers while penalizing those less-uppity blacks who knew their place and followed the laws?
 
I stopped caring about Tancredo after he welched on his promise to smoke weed if it was legalized.
 
Libertarians will never see any real political power for long. About the time they get enough power to open up immigration and therefore citizenship, their newfound fellow citizens will vote them out. Lol.

But the waves have been rising for quite a while and not even a libertarian presidency would stop it, its better we quit fighting it and pull out our board and surf the damn thing.

All the voting activism to stop voter ID laws is not enable the 80 yr old black lady in city who for whatever reason never bothered to get an ID to vote, it is to allow the illegals to vote and they are winning.
 
But the waves have been rising for quite a while and not even a libertarian presidency would stop it, its better we quit fighting it and pull out our board and surf the damn thing.

All the voting activism to stop voter ID laws is not enable the 80 yr old black lady in city who for whatever reason never bothered to get an ID to vote, it is to allow the illegals to vote and they are winning.

 
But the waves have been rising for quite a while and not even a libertarian presidency would stop it, its better we quit fighting it and pull out our board and surf the damn thing.

I think that wave is headed in the wrong direction. You have to consider the government of the countries these people are fleeing, and realize that they aren't fleeing because they disagree with their governments, they just "want to be rich like the Americans". That is not a recipe for freedom.
 
Ron Paul was the better alternative to Tancredo in '08.

Tancredo was very good at exposing the lies from the Corporatists and the miscellaneous other agendas for increased immigration, but he's a one trick pony. He was very bad at falling for other lies like the warfare State and the Federal Reserve.
 
Ron Paul 2006.

Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

by Ron Paul

A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.

In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It's the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.

This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.

No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one's birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.

Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.

Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits.

Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.

I've introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that's precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It's time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.

October 3, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html
 
Reading this thread is disgusting, so I'm going to stop. I'm just glad all you xenophobic racist pieces of garbage are too poor to matter or hold any sway over the electoral process, and so we're going to shove immigration reform down your throats, then make you swallow and ask for more. Have fun watching the white race go extinct, assholes!
 
Reading this thread is disgusting, so I'm going to stop. I'm just glad all you xenophobic racist pieces of garbage are too poor to matter or hold any sway over the electoral process, and so we're going to shove immigration reform down your throats, then make you swallow and ask for more. Have fun watching the white race go extinct, assholes!

So you call everyone else racists, but your true desire is to see "the white race go extinct". Nice. :rolleyes:
 
Reading this thread is disgusting, so I'm going to stop. I'm just glad all you xenophobic racist pieces of garbage are too poor to matter or hold any sway over the electoral process, and so we're going to shove immigration reform down your throats, then make you swallow and ask for more. Have fun watching the white race go extinct, assholes!

spladle splat.

th
 
Back
Top