What do you think of this ad?

[RK Cowan]

This is already being discussed among Paul's American supporters, I'm wondering how those outside the U.S. (like myself) feel about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-iJKwskH4&eurl=http://antiwar.com/blog/

I've spent a lot of time promoting Paul online and elsewhere these past months, and I'm very annoyed at his policy regarding immigration and especially ads like this one. Wondering if maybe we'd have a different perspective on this, especially if we're non-American libertarians.

 

[european]

i dont like the "terrorist nations" for a single milimeter
but we know his stands, so this doesnt bother me at all.
and they do have a huge issue with their illegal immegration. their borders at the south with mexico and also their seaborders are almost not protected. anyone can cross their border illegally if he/she wishes to. there are whole areas that are not procted at all.

 

[RK Cowan]

i dont like the "terrorist nations" for a single milimeter
but we know his stands, so this doesnt bother me at all.
and they do have a huge issue with their illegal immegration. their borders at the south with mexico and also their seaborders are almost not protected. anyone can cross their border illegally if he/she wishes to. there are whole areas that are not procted at all.

I see open borders as a good thing, but then, I'm a libertarian so I would.

 

[Silverfish2910]

I'm a Filipino, so here's my take on this...

1. The "terrorist nations" thing is nuts. "terrorist individuals" or "known agitators" would have been a better sell. Why taint the innocent along with the guilty.
2. I approve of having no welfare for illegal aliens. We shouldn't award law breakers.
3. "Open borders" are crazy at THIS point and time. Mainly because of the welfare incentive. So, until that goes, there is nothing wrong with having requirements like good health or a business plan or some good conduct certificate from the host country or church or something. Maybe a cash bond.
4. New immigrants should be vouched for by a citizen in good standing, and perhaps on consent from the local government with the understanding that if the newcomer messes up, then the guarantor becomes liable as well.


http://www.pinoysforronpaul.com/

 

[Spirit of '76]

Please be aware that Ron does not advocate a blanket denial of student visas based on nationality. The legislation he authored simply provides for stricter scrutiny of visa applications from countries whose governments are on the State Department watch list for governments known to sponsor terrorist activity.

This is a peaceful, diplomatic, and non-interventionist means of encouraging certain governments (and encouraging their citizens to pressure those governments) to stop supporting anti-American terrorist activities.

The choice of wording in the ad was unfortunate, but it was after all only a short blurb in a 30-second ad designed to reach the lowest common denominator.

 

[Joe3113]

I see open borders as a good thing, but then, I'm a libertarian so I would.

It's not a problem if you don't have a welfare state. The reason Ron wants to close the borders is because of the welfare state. It's not sustainable.

The people leaving because of that ad are confused. 'Terrorist Nations' is simply a way, albeit clumsy, of saying 'Nations designated as supporting terrorists by the State Department'. The policy is unfortunate for the good students but it makes sense because statistically, terrorists are more likely to come from these countries. It's just common sense.

 

[Silverfish2910]

Yeah, but we're talking about the ad here. And frankly the wording sucks. I know you can only squeeze so much into 30 seconds, but seriously, somebody should wedgie the guys on the official campaign. First there was Ad 1. Now this. Bleah.

Can we convince 'em to pick and use our YouTube stuff?

 

[RK Cowan]

There is actually two separate issues tied up in this ad, one is immigration and the other visa for students from "terrorist nations"

First, immigration. Most who seem in favour of this plan point out that its over concerns that immigrants are living off the taxpayers. I think its a bogus argument but lets go with that. What I ask is, if that's the problem, why not just end tax supported benefits for immigrants (legal or not). That WOULD be a consistent libertarian position. Then make immigration legal, and they either are self supporting and productive, or they give up and go back home.

I'll tell you, I've sent a great deal of time convincing Canadian libertarians that Ron Paul is a good thing and this is a huge stumbling block. No one sees RPs immigration views as anything remotely libertarian, but as one of the worst forms of Statism. The other non-libertarian candidates are far better than RP on this issue.

How are you going to feel when there are images on the news of brown shirted INS agents rounding up millions of people, dragging them from their homes, loading them up and putting them in concentration camps, then shipped on mass to Mexico. And stories of people who've built productive lives for themselves being stripped of their citizenship and deported because they were born in the U.S. to "illegal" immigrants. Really, if RP is elected, I hope abandons this plan or meets with so much resistance he has to back down. My fear as a Canadian libertarian is that people might associate what he's doing with my ideology.

Second, the visa issue. If you had a libertarian immigration policy, this wouldn't be an issue. As for "terrorist states", you'll putting every individual in that state as part of a collective. Its collective guilty. Like blaming all the Germans for WWII. I think the terrorist threat is highly overblown, and even if not, these sort of measures are going to be of little use. It just makes RP look bad, especially outside of the U.S.

 

[RK Cowan]

Yeah, but we're talking about the ad here. And frankly the wording sucks. I know you can only squeeze so much into 30 seconds, but seriously, somebody should wedgie the guys on the official campaign. First there was Ad 1. Now this. Bleah.

Can we convince 'em to pick and use our YouTube stuff?

I agree completely with that.

 

[Jeremiah]

I do not like labels. Libertarian, liberal, conservative, right, left, socialist, traditionalist, progressive, they all mean different things to different people. They are used to divide us as well as unite us. There are some things we can agree on and some that we need to discuss further. My own positions have changed a lot in the past few years as I have learned more, and I am no youngster. I find it helps when I disagree with a position because I can learn why I do and this helps to clarify my own thinking.

I live in the UK but there is no-one in public life in any country that I have heard making more sense than RP. Most are locked into ways of thinking that they have learned and never questioned. They are more concerned with defending the indefensible than with genuinely seeking a way to understand what is really going on here.

Personally I believe that RP hates statist solutions to any problem. However he can only do so much, even as President, to change the direction we have been moving in for more than a hundred years. To expect him to accomplish everything overnight is insane, literally. He has said himself that our society is degraded and we cannot change this by waving a magic wand. What we can do, and what he has done, is diagnose the problem truthfully and begin to apply the cure. He needs support to do this and walking away from the work to be done because you dislike two seconds of a political commercial tells me that you have not thought this thing through. Persevere and in time everything will become clear to you. Then you will know why you fight and in that day no-one will be able to take it away from you.

 

[Joe3113]

First, immigration. Most who seem in favour of this plan point out that its over concerns that immigrants are living off the taxpayers. I think its a bogus argument but lets go with that. What I ask is, if that's the problem, why not just end tax supported benefits for immigrants (legal or not). That WOULD be a consistent libertarian position. Then make immigration legal, and they either are self supporting and productive, or they give up and go back home.

They would still have birthright citizenship for their children. Ron Paul isn't trying to follow a particular ideology, he is trying to do the best for the American people. He is only loyal to the US constitution.

No one sees RPs immigration views as anything remotely libertarian, but as one of the worst forms of Statism.

Again, Ron Paul isn't trying to follow a particular ideology, he is trying to do the best for the American people. He is only loyal to the US constitution.

You say his policy is statism. If you want to remove borders completely then I think you are part of the wrong organisation. Try these guys http://www.cfr.org.

The welfare state cannot be removed in one day. It takes time. When the situation gets better, immigration will be tolerated.

How are you going to feel when there are images on the news of brown shirted INS agents rounding up millions of people, dragging them from their homes, loading them up and putting them in concentration camps, then shipped on mass to Mexico. And stories of people who've built productive lives for themselves being stripped of their citizenship and deported because they were born in the U.S. to "illegal" immigrants.

I've never heard Ron say his policy will be retroactive.

As president your loyalty is to US citizens, NOT to foreign people.

My fear as a Canadian libertarian is that people might associate what he's doing with my ideology.

Well boo-f*cking-hoo

As for "terrorist states", you'll putting every individual in that state as part of a collective. Its collective guilty. Like blaming all the Germans for WWII. I think the terrorist threat is highly overblown, and even if not, these sort of measures are going to be of little use. It just makes RP look bad, especially outside of the U.S.

It's not a collective guilty, it's a matter of statistics. A violent terrorist is more likely to enter the United States from a country whose government facilitates and supports such behavior. Just like a NBA player is more likely to be African-American than Caucasian.

 

[Joe3113]

I do not like labels. Libertarian, liberal, conservative, right, left, socialist, traditionalist, progressive, they all mean different things to different people. They are used to divide us as well as unite us. There are some things we can agree on and some that we need to discuss further. My own positions have changed a lot in the past few years as I have learned more, and I am no youngster. I find it helps when I disagree with a position because I can learn why I do and this helps to clarify my own thinking.

I live in the UK but there is no-one in public life in any country that I have heard making more sense than RP. Most are locked into ways of thinking that they have learned and never questioned. They are more concerned with defending the indefensible than with genuinely seeking a way to understand what is really going on here.

Personally I believe that RP hates statist solutions to any problem. However he can only do so much, even as President, to change the direction we have been moving in for more than a hundred years. To expect him to accomplish everything overnight is insane, literally. He has said himself that our society is degraded and we cannot change this by waving a magic wand. What we can do, and what he has done, is diagnose the problem truthfully and begin to apply the cure. He needs support to do this and walking away from the work to be done because you dislike two seconds of a political commercial tells me that you have not thought this thing through. Persevere and in time everything will become clear to you. Then you will know why you fight and in that day no-one will be able to take it away from you.

+1

 

[RK Cowan]

Well boo-f*cking-hoo

Convinced me with that argument.

 

[Joe3113]

Convinced me with that argument.

That was my strongest point I think

 

[JohnM]

I live in the UK. I think that a lot of people in the UK would see the ad negatively. The reason is that in the UK to speak out strongly against immigration (legal or illegal) is widely perceived as the mark of a racist.

I must confess that when I first studied Ron Paul's views, I was somewhat surprised to see what a tough line he took on illegal immigration. However, I am prepared to concede that he may well be right.

I personally do not have strong views on the subject of immigration - it is a tough subject. However I do believe in the rule of law, and as such I agree that it makes sense that the border should be physically secured, and that there should be no amnesty or welfare for illegal immigrants. I also think that birthright citizenship for the children of people who are in a country illegally is simply nonsense.

There are two other issues. One is the reference in the ad to overwhelming "borders, schools, and hospitals." I think that is not the wisest phrasing, even if it is true.

The other is visas for students from "terrorist nations". This really is a separate issue, and, in my opinion, should not have been included in the ad.

So - in the end, while I have minor reservations about the ad, on balance I think that it is fair enough. I know that some of Ron Paul's supporters really disliked it, and i can see why, but I thought it was OK.

I actually think that it is better than the "We have the answer" ad. At least it deals with Ron Paul's position on issues. "We have the answer" was very nice, but didn't really tell people anything about Ron Paul.

 

[RK Cowan]

Do you also believe there should be no amnesty for drug users? That there should continue to be a differentiation between "legal" and "illegal" drugs? Here is how another Canadian libertarian took the ad:

Here is the Ron Paul equivalent announcement on the drug war....

(but thankfully he is GREAT on the drug war, so why can't he see the problems with his views on immigration?)

Narrator: For generations, Lady Liberty allowed people to buy drugs that came here legally, from seller who followed the rules and led productive lives. Today, illegal drugs violate our laws and overwhelm our police, hospitals, schools and social services.

Ron Paul wants drug security NOW:
ü Physically secure the market place to make sure that only legal drugs are sold.
ü No amnesty.
ü No welfare to druggies
ü End birthright citizenship to druggies.
ü No more student visas for illegal drug users.

Standing up for the rule of law… Ron Paul for President.

Congressman Paul: I’m Ron Paul and I approve this message.