When Does Open Immigration Become An Invasion?

[erowe1]

Rand Paul was rated as the 2nd best of ALL candidates of both parties by NumbersUSA before Trump came out with his detailed proposal. He is currently rated #3 as "Very good", behind only Trump and Santorum's "Excellent" rating.

Case in point.

This is flat out false. As judged by NumbersUSA, Rand gets a D+, putting him at 12th place out of the 15 GOP candidates they grade.
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/elections/races/presidential/2016-presidential-hopefuls.html

And on their top issue, mandating E-Verify and punishing business violators, he gets the very worst rating out of all Republicans, and almost the worst rating out of all Republicans and Democrats combined, and I say, three cheers to Rand Paul for that. Obviously, he's bravely standing up for a minority position here, and we should help him try to win more people over to it. We have the advantage of being right.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

McAdams was Ron's foreign policy advisor, not his immigration advisor.

Yep, he did foreign policy too. In the video he says that he covered immigration.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I have not heard him say that he is against laws against employing illegal immigrants. But I have heard him say that he's against laws that make it possible for the federal government to catch anyone who does, which is effectively the same thing.

He probably doesn't completely oppose deporting a few illegal immigrants here and there. But he's not for mass deportation.

Yep, he is not for "rounding them all up and deporting them". He says it would be expensive and severely destructive of liberty. That is my position as well.

And he's also not for attrition through enforcement, where supposedly the difficulty of living and working here as an illegal immigrant would incentivize self-deportation.

I've never heard him say that. Have a quote?

And he is for making it legal for those illegal immigrants who are already here to stay here, without becoming citizens, but also without having to fear deportation.

Not exactly. He says that in a hypothetical ideal situation, when the welfare state is eliminated and the economy is good, then you can have a Bracereo type system with cards issued to foreign workers who come here to work.

Notice what Roy Beck from NumbersUSA says about Ron Paul's position:

There you go again. You want to take a selective quote from a biased activist instead of listening to what Ron himself says.

 

[Sola_Fide]

We need more honesty on these forums. For immigration hawks, like NumbersUSA, Ron Paul was among the worst of the worst Republicans (which is another way of saying that for lovers of freedom, he was among the best of the best), and Rand Paul isn't far behind. The truth is out there. If we don't admit it, people will still find it out.

Rather than try to rebrand them to win over Republicans who hate immigrants, we should put our efforts into changing peoples minds, and winning people over, not just to supporting a politician, but to supporting more freedom and less government.

Exactly. When did this movement lose its principles and stop teaching the principled things like a free market in labor?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Exactly. When did this movement lose its principles and stop teaching the principled things like a free market in labor?

Ron Paul supporters never have been and never will be identical in every regard.

 

[Ender]

Ron Paul supporters never have been and never will be identical in every regard.

True- but the understanding of freedom and natural rights is essential.

 

[William Tell]

There you go again. You want to take a selective quote from a biased activist instead of listening to what Ron himself says.

^ This. Ron's view is worth actually listening to.

 

[erowe1]

Not exactly. He says that in a hypothetical ideal situation, when the welfare state is eliminated and the economy is good, then you can have a Bracereo type system with cards issued to foreign workers who come here to work.

If, as Ron Paul promotes, you don't have Social Security Numbers, and you don't have W-2s, and you don't have E-Verify, then how is the federal government going to know when someone hires an illegal immigrant?

He might keep laws on the books against doing that. But he would take away all the teeth the government has for enforcement (and that's a great thing that we should use as a selling point). I don't believe it's possible for anyone to come up with a way to enforce any laws against hiring illegal immigrants that would be something Ron Paul could conceivably support. What little effect such a law would have under his approach would depend on voluntary cooperation and snitching.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Ron Paul supporters never have been and never will be identical in every regard.

But something like supporting contracts ought to be pretty universal among Ron Paul supporters.

I would like to think that rejecting things such as the social contract theory and legal positivism would be pretty much across the board among Ron Paul supporters as well.

The only argument against which holds validity would be the argument against providing healthcare, education, etc. subsidies with respect to immigrants. But why simply confine it to immigrants? The argument, which ought to be just a simple argument that taking from one to give to another is immoral, less has to do with immigrants and more has to do with all of society.

The rest of the stuff is protectionist nonsense often argued by the same sort who wish to raise import tariffs. It's been addressed and point by point dismantled well over a hundred years ago. It having been addressed well over a hundred years ago, the books are largely available on the internet and free. I mean, there's really no excuse for these detrimental and authoritarian ideas to still be given merit, especially among Ron Paul supporters.

 

[William Tell]

When Does Open Immigration Become An Invasion?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE5doLAWJZ8

Quick summary of the Ron Paul Liberty Report video:

In the first two minutes, Ron says that he is neither for open borders or totally closed borders, and that he likes to look at it from an economic perspective, and that the US economy is bad. He then goes into the welfare state problem and welfare state mandates and incentives, and that nothing will be solved unless the economy gets better.

Ron later describes a potential ideal situation with a Bracero type arrangement (temporary labor, no citizenship). McDaniel's (who was Ron's immigration staff specialist) later states bluntly "you were not an open borders person".

Ron also criticizes e-verify, the futility of a bigger "wall" and birthright citizenship. He mentions the absurdity of Trump's plan to intercept the money that poor workers send to Mexico, and is not fond of demagogueing and scapegoating.

In essence, Ron's position has not changed one iota from his position in 2007:

Good summary.

 

[erowe1]

Ron's view is worth actually listening to.

^This.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If, as Ron Paul promotes, you don't have Social Security Numbers, and you don't have W-2s, and you don't have E-Verify, then how is the federal government going to know when someone hires an illegal immigrant?

He might keep laws on the books against doing that. But he would take away all the teeth the government has for enforcement.

Even in Ron's perfect state, he wants foreign workers to have cards of some kind identifying their work status. State (and local governments) can issue IDs. And other enforcement of those laws would be based upon probable cause, just like any other violation or crime. Someone could report individual violations.

There are laws against theft. Just because every person's home is not inspected for stolen goods once a week doesn't mean that the law does not exist and won't be enforced.

 

[erowe1]

Even in Ron's perfect state, he wants foreign workers to have cards of some kind identifying their work status.

What about American workers?

If American workers don't have to have cards, then nobody does. Foreigners could just apply for jobs claiming to be Americans.

And you still have the problem that, even if there's a law on paper telling employers they are supposed to check these cards, without any way of knowing whether they ever do or not, the law will have no effect.

There are laws against theft. Just because every person's home is not inspected for stolen goods once a week doesn't mean that the law does not exist and won't be enforced.

Laws against theft get enforced because theft is a crime that has actual victims who have incentive to report it.

 

[erowe1]

There you go again. You want to take a selective quote from a biased activist instead of listening to what Ron himself says.

The bias of NumbersUSA is a bias against open borders. If Ron Paul were the immigration hawk some people here want to pretend he is, they'd love him there. The reason they don't is because of exactly what I've been saying. Workplace enforcement is the most essential part of any serious immigration control in a country this size. Things like walls and guards at the border are insignificant in comparison.

 

[Ender]

HERE is RP's stand on immigration:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/08/ron-paul/subsidized-mass-migration/

For Immigration Answers, Look to Liberty
By Ron Paul
Ron Paul Institute
August 25, 2015

What should be done with the estimated 15 million people living in the United States without the legal right to be here? It seems most politicians and many Americans come down on one or the other extreme. Many Republicans, including Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, have the idea that they can round up 15 million people and ship them back to wherever they came from. Many Democrats, on the other hand, would grant them blanket amnesty, give them citizenship, and make sure as many as possible are fully signed up to the welfare ranks.

Has anyone thought for a moment about how difficult, expensive, disruptive, and dangerous to our civil liberties it would be to turn over every stone in this country to search for someone who might not be here legally? How many billions of dollars would it cost? The government would likely introduce a national identification card in effort to determine who should be here and who should not. The cards would no doubt be equipped with biometric data to transmit to the government information about law-abiding American citizens that they have no right knowing.

But on the other hand, how many billions of dollars per year does it cost to provide federal, state, and local welfare and other benefits to individuals who are not legally in the United States?

The situation seems impossible and it is true there are no easy answers. I have suggested in my book Liberty Defined that some status short of citizenship might be conferred on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps a “green card” with a notation indicating that the person is not eligible for welfare and not permitted to vote in the United States. I don’t think there is any doubt that many who come to this country illegally simply want to work and will take jobs that Americans refuse to take.

The fact is, in a more libertarian society citizenship itself would not be all that highly prized. Immigration could be controlled to a degree using property rights instead of building walls and issuing a national ID card. One very important “right” currently granted by US citizenship is the “right” to all the free stuff from the government. A more libertarian society would likely have a more restrictive immigration policy because entry into the US would not be accompanied by guarantees of free things and most property would be owned privately.

Similarly, the issue of birthright citizenship would be much less difficult if acquiring American citizenship by the fact of being born on US soil did not grant the child the ability to take advantage of the welfare state. Remove the welfare magnet and you will greatly reduce the incentive to give birth here in order to gain citizenship for the baby.

Congress has within its power the authority to clarify the 14th Amendment’s definition of citizenship by making it clear that it does not grant citizenship by birthright. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is very clear: Congress has the power, “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.” This power has been used in the past to clarify birthright citizenship, including for the children of diplomats born on US soil and foreign prisoners who may give birth while in jail. There is no reason Congress cannot provide further clarification of what the 14 Amendment means when it refers to “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

It is our weak economy, caused to a great degree by the Federal Reserve system and the business cycles it constantly creates, that makes the immigration situation worse for us. Neither extreme position is correct because neither takes this into consideration. A move toward more liberty would be the first step toward a normal immigration policy.

Can I hear an AMEN?

 

[fr33]

Sure, there have been "times" for everything. But, that was back when the country needed people to settle the land. That hasn't been the case for a very long time.

I agree that once someone has been told they can immigrate here, that the process is ridiculously slow and something needs to be done about it. But, sorry, that doesn't follow that it's ok for one ton of people to break our laws and flood across our borders.

This isn't happening by accident. It is just one of the strategies of the one-worlders to bring down our country. And it has been working wonderfully.

So what you are saying is that you want to conserve modern immigration laws and not those of the past. It's just more proof that your living document called the constitution and your standards of being a conservative can easily change over time to support tyranny.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Agree on all points.

It is also rather amusing to see a country of people where 999.999% come from immigrants, hating immigrants.

Oh the irony.

Did you see what happened to the natives? They are a powerless minority. Thanks for arguing AGAINST unbridled immigration!

Ron later describes a potential ideal situation with a Bracero type arrangement (temporary labor, no citizenship). McDaniel's (who was Ron's immigration staff specialist) later states bluntly "you were not an open borders person".

First, this is not a problem of free immigration per se, but of democracy, which ought to be discarded in any event.

But, given the existence of democracy, there's a very simple solution: don't give immigrants the vote.

I think this is a better position. Immigration for work, not citizenship & welfare!

I've never heard him say that. Have a quote?

Typically, most people that are against illegal immigration, fully support encumbering businesses with laws that demand them to police activity. Ron is against that & I tend to concur.
http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

I don't like putting the burden on our businessmen to be the policemen. That means he has to be policing activity. But I have a strong position on immigration. I don't think that we should give amnesty and they become voters. But I do think we should deal with our borders.

The argument, which ought to be just a simple argument that taking from one to give to another is immoral,

Yes, & therefore, something that will lead to more theft & socialism should be opposed for the sake of liberty.

The rest of the stuff is protectionist nonsense often argued by the same sort who wish to raise import tariffs. It's been addressed and point by point dismantled well over a hundred years ago.

Of course. But the political & cultural consequences can't be neglected.

Laws against theft get enforced because theft is a crime that has actual victims who have incentive to report it.

If you haven't noticed yet, there are plenty of people who believe that immigration leads to lower living-standards (NOT my position), who do have an incentive to report illegals.

 

[erowe1]

There you go again. You want to take a selective quote from a biased activist instead of listening to what Ron himself says.

Conveniently, this morning, Ron Paul himself has provided exactly this. I could have written this prescription myself.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/08/ron-paul/subsidized-mass-migration/

RP may be averse to describing his proposals as effectively open border ones, and that's his prerogative. It's a relative term, after all. But I don't see how they aren't. I also think they're very reasonable, and there's no reason so many people here need to feel as embarrassed by them as they are.

 

[erowe1]

HERE is RP's stand on immigration:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/08/ron-paul/subsidized-mass-migration/



Can I hear an AMEN?

+rep

Ender beat me to it.

 

[erowe1]

If you haven't noticed yet, there are plenty of people who believe that immigration leads to lower living-standards (NOT my position), who do have an incentive to report illegals.

I have. I just don't think they amount to a very important factor in the actual catching of them. And without requiring American citizens to have papers validating themselves as such, how much could really be done as a result of this kind of snitching?

Let's say that judges deem it as probably cause to sign search warrants to go find out if the named individuals really are illegal immigrants. What would they search for? Maybe agents just go talk to them and ask them if they are here legally, and then the people say, "Si." And that's that. There's nothing more to do.

Workplace enforcement is the most essential tool for government limiting of immigration, as you correctly hinted earlier in your post.