Reader Comments:

Posted By: RickSp
Date: 2008-04-29 05:57:10

Excellent article.

Ron Paul is such a mix of contradictions. He claims to be the "champion of the Constitution" yet opposes birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the Constitution.  He opposes national ID cards yet calls for the draconian round up of immigrants that would of necessity rely heavily on the use of the sort of identification he opposes.  As you point out, he wants to stop "immigrant law breakers" but is much more tolerant of other "law breakers" who use illegal drugs or don't pay their taxes.  It is a shame that Dr. Paul is not more consistent in his support of liberty.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Eric
Date: 2008-04-29 07:47:59

RickSp, Ron Paul does not call for the "draconian round up" of illegal immigrants.  He calls for the end of the unconstitutional war on drugs, because it is an individual right and choice on what people decide what to put in their bodies, as long as it doesn't deny the rights of others. As a sovereign nation, we need to identify people that enter our country that were not born here. If they truly are starting businesses and creating jobs, as you assume, then why not come forward, and identify such? They would have more freedoms to employ and spread their entrepreneurial goals. Another point you fail to address is that illegal immigrants come to work here, then send their money back home to support their families there, having a negative effect on our economy.  It seems you would agree that some illegal immigrants are leeches on the american way of life.  Then isn't the only fair option is to treat everyone the same way? If everyone comes forward, and identifies themselves, how would that be bad?  The troublemakers and leeches need to return to their home country, where instead, maybe they can develop a determination to change things in their home country for the better, develop the entrepreneur spirit in so many of their counterparts as you claim.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Chris
Date: 2008-04-29 07:52:02

So you think that Mexican citizens should be able to come and go into our country as they please? Oh and if you dont think we have a front door, then it must be the back door that all these illegals use to get into our country. You know, if Americans started to pour into Mexico the same way theyre pouring in here and started to demand rights and that the Mexican govt started requiring things in English, they wouldn't stand for it. So why should we?

Report violation

---

Posted By: Jeremiah
Date: 2008-04-29 08:19:32

I think Ron Paul is more critical of the welfare state as one of the major problems of illegal immigration.  The welfare state creates a magnet for illegals to come here.  I'm not saying that if we got rid of the welfare state then illegal immigation would dissappear.  But I do believe that it would drastically decrease.  In the abstract, I think Ron Paul believes in an open border.  But the anarchy-libertarian views that Ron Paul's mentor Ludwig Von Mises holds that there shouldent really be a federal government at all; he believes that the military and court systems can be privitized.  Assuming thats correct, then yes, you can have an open border with no government.  But as long as centralized governments exist, then yes, we need secure borders and control on illegal immigration.

Report violation

---

Posted By: E. Rowe
Date: 2008-04-29 08:38:00

You say, "I don't see why this means Ron Paul has decided to start attacking the symptom of 'illegal immigration' instead of attacking the supposed causes government food stamps, Social Security, education, and forcing hospitals to treat patients for free." But he's not attacking the symptom instead of the causes. He's attacking both. When and if we succeed at overturning the government freebies he would sing a different tune about illegal immigration. It is clear that, while giving freebies to Americans is bad, extending them to all of the other 6 billion people in the world on the condidtion that they set foot on our soil is worse. Therefore, desisting from the latter immediately, while we work to eliminate the former over time, is a strategy with which I can't imagine any principled libertarian disagreeing.

Report violation

---

Posted By: RickSp
Date: 2008-04-29 08:46:19

The welfare state argument is a fraud. Most immigrants are not eligible for welfare benefits. Most illegals pay Federal taxes. Most studies suggest that the illegals pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.  (The problem is that those benefits used by illegals tend to be local whereas the taxes they pay tend to be Federal. This is a tax code issue and hardly the fault of the immigrants.)

No, I do not favor completely unlimited immigration. I do favor a rational policy that would allow those who wish to work and do not have criminal backgrounds have a  chance to do so, with a reasonable path to citizenship over a period of time.  I do not support Dr. Paul's unconstitutional and frankly un-American proposal to ban birthright citizenship. 

Report violation

---

Posted By: Grizzle Griz
Date: 2008-04-29 09:12:43

Ugh, you shouldn't post articles like this. First, it's untrue. Ron Paul has not changed his position on immigration; the economy changed. In 1988, he specifically said that we have to be able to shoulder the burden of immigration for it to remain legal. HIs position now is that we can no longer shoulder the burden. How is that inconsistent? Second, you can be sued for defamation. Be smart. Do your research.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Darel
Date: 2008-04-29 09:21:00

Perhaps Jermey should take more time to read actual gov documents as it pertains to the free trade agreements and the NAU or SPP plans. The SPP site says very clearly that the global elite plan to use illegal immigration to bring down the wages of the US and will use Immigration as a means to create this plan. While Jermey confirms he is from another nation our threats here at home is from the southern border. The influx of mexian immigration will also have a major impact on political races in 8-15 years. So Ron understands such actions are a major threat to our nation. I support him with nearly every view he has proposed. We must have strong borders and must return anyone who has crossed the borders without proper passage.

Report violation

---

Posted By: WillPhelps
Date: 2008-04-29 09:23:24

I am not opposed to immigration, and I don't think Dr. Paul is either. All immigration is not the same. There is legal and illegal... beneficial and harmful.  If all immgration was beneficial, why is California going bankrupt?  Dr. Paul has said, if our economy was string, we would be asking for immigrants.

My grandparents did it the legal way. They came through Ellis Island. Learned English. Worked in the coal mines of PA and paid taxes.  Allowing people to jump the line and just  walk in is an insult to my grandparents and every other immigrant who obeyed the law and loved this country.

Please go to Google Video and search for "Immigration by Numbers".  You will see some numbers that are firghtening, and I don't think they include illegals.

 

Report violation

---

Posted By: Michael McDonnough
Date: 2008-04-29 09:45:10

Too bad there is no thumbs down on this site. This bit of unresearched opinion is not worth the 3 minutes it took to read. Your fax are fauxed up Jeremy. The factual errors are so great it is just not worth responding to this article at the length it would require. My time is too valuable.

Report violation

---

Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-29 09:48:35

First off, really? This is what we are down to? Please take the time to read Dr. Pauls writings and you will find your answers.

Secondly, my wife works for the local/state health department, she states that over 60% of her patients are illegally in this country and dont pay squat for the services they get. Also here in TN, the children of illegals get educated in our schools which we pay for out of our property taxes. These illegals own no property here so where is the money coming from. Here in TN we rely more and more on migrant workers, because they can pay them less than minimum wage. Do you think the employer is paying taxes on a worker that they are not even paying minimum wage? Get real. And if this is truly as you state a tax code problem, the TAXATION in itself is the problem and not the code.

NEWS FLASH to you all, resources are getting more and more scarce, just like in pre WWII Germany, we better conserve what we have instead of giving it away.

But the deeper issue remains that illegal immigrants have no rights here. This is exactly what the socialist oligarchy wants. Read Marx and his ideals of the prolitariot and the Middle class. We have no agrarian nor industrial production capabilities now. The lower and middle class are being forced into social programs, leaving non-citizens as the new prolitariot. Don't you see that this is purely manufactured to suppress further revolutions of the prolitariot and the middle class. If the masses that are prone to revolution have no rights here they are no threat as they can simply be removed.

The comment about the front door being wide open is in response to the fact that the neo-conns push their agendas against our civil liberties under the guise of our security, yet they leave access to the country wide open and merely further subjigate the citizenry. He is simply bringing the hypocracy of this ideology to light. 

Lastly, I have not read all of Von Mises' great writings, but in what I have read I do not find total anarchy as his point of view, only the minimum amount of government. He does advocate true free markets, or no governmental control of the markets, of course he is highly opposed to socialism, which means government control of any part of manufacture, distribution or control of the economy. So please enlighten me as to what literary work by Von Mises you are referencing.

LIBERTY or DEATH

 

Report violation

---

Posted By: william king
Date: 2008-04-29 09:51:58

  it seems like you have to dig deep to find something to minutely disagree with Ron Paul on. where as with  the other candidates  their histories  wouldn't get them in the running for local dog catcher. Ron Paul is a candidate above all candidates to come down the pike in a very long time and you know it.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Chad
Date: 2008-04-29 10:08:24

The author understands Ron Paul's immigration policy about as well as McCain understands economics.

His immigration policy is most simply stated as "when you subsidize something, you get more of it." Therefore, we should stop subsidizing immigration with free health care, education, etc...

As a strict constitutionalist, he would call for an Amendment to change the birthright citizenship, an idea foreign to modern politicians; the proper avenue set up by the Founders to make changes in our Federal Laws.  Conventional politicians change laws by getting judges to "interpret" current law as they see fit.

Report violation

---

Posted By: spinnikerca
Date: 2008-04-29 10:16:34

I never thought about illegal immigration before 2006, and the marches.  I thought a LOT about the failing schools in Los Angeles, the fact that gifted programs were cut and all extra money went to not only nonEnglish speaking students but their parents, while special needs of those whose families built the school were papered over as 'not as important.'.  I didn't hold it against the people who didn't speak English, but was furious that our schools seemed to be 'constantly behind' on budgeting for a decent education and adequate facilities - and why couldn't we train enough teachers that our kids could be tought by those not on emergency certificates?  And why was health care and insurance so much worse in California when we spent so much on it?

 After I did RESEARCH on illegal immigration, when the marches made it clear how many were here, and I learned how many came every year and the impact of chain migration, it was very clear why our schools were failing our own children, why our hospitals were closing, and why we would NEVER be able to catch up.  You can't budget for this inflow of non-English speaking students, and those who are supporting the schools are no longer getting education their own children need.

 Do I want roundups?

 Hardly.  I LIVE here, and I am sure (now) that many people I know must be illegally here, including students in my childrens' schools.  But I do want it stopped, and do see that chain migration to those given amnesty in 1986 is what causes the 'broken' system backlog through family preferences.  I know that chain migration (as would have occured from the Senate Bill) would be impossible for our schools and hospitals.  Our own children can't go to the best college they can get into for cost reasons.  But we have to pay to educate others whose own country won't do that?

It IS the subsidies, but it isn't just 'food stamps'.  The real harm is in the schools, health care, and social security payments (once they become legalized.)

Our politicians are not looking at that.  Big business's need for slave labor and the illegal immigrant's desire to be legal and bring family are addressed in legislative plans, but not the needs of the American citizens who both fund and need to use the schools.

Address it. 

It isn't the people, it's the problem that bothers me.

Report violation

---

Posted By: RickSp
Date: 2008-04-29 10:20:45

"My grandparents did it the legal way. They came through Ellis Island. Learned English. Worked in the coal mines of PA and paid taxes.  Allowing people to jump the line and just  walk in is an insult to my grandparents and every other immigrant who obeyed the law and loved this country."

This is actually very funny. The barriers to immigration in your grandparent's day were extremely modest.  If your grandparents attempted to immigrate today they would be turned away.  They would have the door slammed in their faces.  For most immigrants to America today there is no such thing as "legal" immigration.

Report violation

---

Posted By: LonewackoDotCom
Date: 2008-04-29 10:22:00

Due to MassiveImmigration from that country, Mexico has been able to obtain a great deal of PoliticalPower inside the U.S. They have links to non-profits and even elected officials, and they take other actions to push their agenda of continuing to make money from sending us people. Giving a foreign government PoliticalPower inside one's country is a cost, yet it's one I have yet to see any "economist" or "libertarian" figure into the balance.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Martin
Date: 2008-04-29 10:43:30

First of all, illegal immigration in 1988 caused nowhere near the strain on our budget that it does today. We'll have enough trouble funding social security without giving it to those who have no social security number and have given little or nothing to the system. Second, it's not the enforcement of these laws that cost us money (unlike the drug laws) it's the lack of. Third, birthright citizenship was not originally part of the Constitution, it was an amendment. Ron may not have had the foresight of seeing the fence as a tool of captivity, but inherintly it's not a bad thing to regulate border crossings.

Report violation

---

Posted By: D
Date: 2008-04-29 10:57:23

Perhaps Ron Paul, like most every other human being, is seeing that to fix America, some heavy measures need to be put in place. We are in a heavy financial crisis, we are in a terrible economic crisis and I will not be afraid of not being politically correct, but I 100% agree with Ron Paul, that right now, we do not need immigrants coming into out country illegally and using the birth right gaurenteed in the Constitution to gain access into out country via their offspring. Something needs to be done.

 Also there is one point that I must expand on. The author of this piece said "We as a nation do not have a front door" ... well at one point I believe we did have a 'front door' if you will. Two words: Ellis Island. Yes, it was closed down in 1954, but there was once upon a time, a system that anyone choosing to enter the United States used to have to adhere to. I do believe that even before Ellis Island, the United States had a system for immigration. Immigrants needed to be 'processed' in Manhattan at the Castle Garden immigration Depot. Up until 1954 there was always a set way to going access to this country. To defend our country from terrorists abroad and at home, we need to secure our borders just like Ron Paul said. 

 Let me also expand on what the author said in his 'Fighting The Symptom' paragraph. "...Ron Paul has decided to start attacking the symptom if illegal immigration instead of attacking the supposed causes..." Let me say that even though I do not agree with your stance on this issue your work was a good read up until that sentance. Since I find the authorwell read and knowlageable of Ron Paul, I would not have expected a statment like that to be written in this article. Ron Paul has indeed been attacking the 'causes' along with the 'symptom' of illegal immigration. By reforming the social security, education, and medical crisis' that America is facing there is a trickle down effect in place for his plans to also stop the illegal immigration. Also the only reason Ron Paul has an issue witht he birth right citizenship, is because of these people illegally taking advntage of it. Like I mentioned before.

 Ron Paul might not be a smooth talker like Obama but he sure will not pull the wool over your eyes like Ms.Clinton will. He will not have no plan in place and be the thrid term of our President Bush now like McCain is planning on becoming. Ron Paul might have plans that require good faith, but he is indeed the only economist in this Presidential race and the only candidate with a cohesive plan to get America back on track. His stance on imigration fits into his overall plan and though it might rub some people the wrong way, look past your ingrained thoughts of 'if they're working they're ok' because it's just not the case. Though many illegals are working, they are also spending more then they are bringing in (as a whole in education & medical) Ron Paul is the only candidate with a plan for America. He is already my President and I back his immigration plan 100%.

 

RonPaul2008.com

DailyPaul.com

RonPaulForPresident2008.com

Report violation

---

Posted By: Lloyd Kempson
Date: 2008-04-29 11:21:11

A return to libertarian ideas! America Belongs to everybody who is peaceful and wants to come here! Open the border!

Report violation

---

Posted By: RickSp
Date: 2008-04-29 11:53:21

"birthright citizenship was not originally part of the Constitution,"

Birthright citizenship is part of English Common Law dating back to the 1600s which was adhered to in this country prior to the revolution and is assumed by the Constitution.  All the 14th Amendment did was apply the rights of all other citizens to black Americans who had been slaves and therefore considered to be property.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Eric Lysczek
Date: 2008-04-29 12:30:34

As for the comments about legal immigrants getting the door slammed in their faces...  This is purely because we are so overrun by ILLEGAL immigrants that we have no resources for LEGAL immigrants.   In terms of birthright citizenship... If your parents are citizens of the USA and you are born anywhere in the world, including the US, you can be a citizen of the USA. Allowing someone to cross the border and have a baby on our land should not give them the right to be a citizen.  That is just rediculous.  It is the interpretation of the law that being disputed.  Citizenship when being born of  american citizens is not being debated.  If I am on vacation in France and my wife gives birth, my child is no means a citizen of France.  It simply wouldn't make sense.  Nor does our current interpretation of the law.

Report violation

---

Posted By: The RON PAUL LAWS
Date: 2008-04-29 12:42:31

Commandment # 1: Thou shalt not criticize Ron Paul or any of his positions, he is always right.

Commandment #2: Thou shalt not criticize Ron Paul for the kooks that he associates with. Ron Paul needs all of the votes that he can get, especially the crazy ones.

Commandment #3: Thou Shalt not bring up the fact that Ron Paul lost his own district in Texas to McCain.

Commandment #4: Thou Shalt always act as if Ron Paul really does have a chance for him to win the nomination.

Commandment #5: Thou Shalt not say that 9/11 was not an inside job.

Commandment #6: Thou Shalt not support a compromise that favors an increase in trade. Thou shalt not support the North American Union.

Commandment #7: Thous Shalt always cry, complain, and have only pessimistic attitudes about the future of America without Ron Paul in office.

Commandment #8: Thou Shalt always claim that Ron Paul would have won the nomination had the Diebold voting machines not been hacked.

Commandment #9: Thou Shalt Not claim to actually know anybody that did not support Ron Paul.

Commandment #10: Thou Shalt Not bring up the fact that Ron Paul would face opposition in Congress and that most of his Vetos would more than likely be overridden with a 2/3rds majority vote.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Joe
Date: 2008-04-29 12:44:57

How about giving us facts next time instead of your opinion unless it is stated so.  Thumbs down

Report violation

---

Posted By: D
Date: 2008-04-29 12:45:30

"RonPaulLaws"

you are an idiot. period.

Report violation

---

Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-29 13:36:45

Nice one lloyd, RonPaul Laws, tool!

Uhm unless I missed something the 14 amend had nothing to do with slaves it was the 13th (ratified under force of arms after the Civil War). The 14th was ratified under force of arms of the majority July of 1868.

The US Constitution was written by lawyers, you really think they left things up to assumption? Birth right citizenship is not in the Constitution it only restricts the President if he is not a citizen at the time of the Constitution or a naturally born citizen. As far as American, libetarian rights, hell yeah, AMERICAN RIGHTS in America, not non- American rights in America over Americans. Citizens of other countries have no rights nor claims in the US, so why are US citizens arguing for them? ANSWER" CHEAP LABOR AND BLEEDING HEARTS.

"Don't believe the hype" Flava Flave

LIBERTY or DEATH

Report violation

---

Posted By: omegis13
Date: 2008-04-29 13:37:07

I think Dr. Paul realizes that w/ the nation's current socialist systems, social security, welfare, medicare, etc, that to bring in additional people would be a further burden to a nation that is truly struggling.  I have heard him state (unfortunately, I am too tired/busy to find the exact quote) that if all of these "safety nets" were not in place to give people who will likely struggle to get started an incentive to not improve, he would have no problem with a more leniant immigration policy.  Unfortunately, to become the ideal libertarian society that we all envision, it is going to take decades.  Congress will not let these socialist programs just end, and it would take more than two presidential terms to do it anyway.  Perhaps when we are closer to achieving a truly responsible nation, such restrictions on immigration will not be necessary.  Once again, I know that Ron Paul truly feels this way as well, but he realizes that with the current system, such an open immigration policy would only hurt both those already here and those who will come in the immediate future.

 (Please note: the author of this comment has not slept in 36+ hours.  There are surely spelling/gramatical errors  that would not normally appear in the author's writings, however the author is to sleep deprived to manage the corrections.)

Report violation

---

Posted By: Justin Hollabaugh
Date: 2008-04-29 14:13:22

I think we should recognize all human beings as citizens of the Earth and therefore deserving of liberty. The question of where you were born and who your parents were shouldn't have any bearing on your freedom.

It shouldn't entitle you to any redistribution of wealth (welfare) either. Nor should federal regulations entitle you to receive services you cannot pay for.

I'm in agreement that Paul's 1988 stance is the correct stance but I'm willing too look past it because I think it would be too much for modern socialist Americans to swallow and there are bigger fish to fry (The Federal Reserve).

Let's dismantle the machinery which robs tax payers and "American Citizens" first. Once freedom has been returned to "American Citizens", we can then worry about changing the definition of "Citizen".

In other words, even if it isn't the ideal stance to take. It may be the best one to take for the time being. We have but to eliminate the problems that make illegal immigration a problem in the first place.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Stebro
Date: 2008-04-29 14:17:58

The apparent inconsistency of Ron Paul's stand on illegal immigration has bothered me as well. Milton Friedman said, "You can't have open borders and a welfare state at the same time. If you do, you'll be overrun with immigrants and our welfare system will go broke."

Since the welfare system will be more difficult to dissassemble than it will be to enforce immigration law, then it seems reasonable to start where it is easiest to make changes.

Which is not to say we shouldn't be as busy as possible deconstructing the US social welfare state. We have seen the result of Friedman's projection. The problem really lies with state welfare eligibility rules and I would like to see the law changed that allows a child to become a born citizen whether either parent was American or not. That just invites manipulation and was quite probably not the intent of the original doctrine.

Ron Paul also explicitly supports overhauling legal immigration laws to make them more rational. We have a great deal to gain from the contributions of foreign nationals whose efforts may be better rewarded here than in their home country.

I have no sympathy for those who shout "them gol' durn furriners are stealing our jobs." Such people are either ignorant of labor income demographics, lazy or both. Welcome to the world of competition. That is the same mentality that supports unions in order to protect their unearned higher wages from the competition of a free market.

This system works best as a meritocracy. If you can't outcompete a self educated Mexican field worker ... tough. You should have studied harder in school or worked to upgrade your skills. This is not a political issue, it is a competitive one. It becomes political when the outcompeted demand equal compensation.

We cannot protect our standard of living from world competition by closing our borders, restricting trade, licensing or other symptomatic patches on an unworkable system. Those are failed liberal statist tactics ... lest we forget.

Report violation

---

Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-29 14:52:49

I think most dont mind migrant workers being here as they help drive down prices do to their cheap labor. However as long as I am paying for one American not to work, then I cannot advocate anyothers coming here and working in his/her stead. Surely socialism is the main cause and immigration is only a symptom. The caveat is we are still funding all of these social services because Americans cannot make it on their own, AND allowing cheap foriegn labor. We cannot afford both, it is a mathematical impossibiblity.

LIBERTY or DEATH

Report violation

---

Posted By: Republicae
Date: 2008-04-29 16:17:08

According to the Houston Chronicle in some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. That along with the other pressures on our entitlement system seems unsustainable, don’t you think?  

I mean at the moment we currently have over 50 or 60 Trillion Dollars in unfunded future obligations; and I don’t think those figures take the added pressure of illegal aliens in consideration. Everybody wants everything it seems, especially when it comes to entitlements, entitlements that will not be there for massive numbers of people now depending on those checks in their old age. Back in the 80s, Congress did a little shell-game with the Social Security Trust Fund and believe it or not, the game still continues to this day. Does anyone remember when they raised the FICA taxes? The reasons for that was that they needed to annually fund the system since, as I said, back in the 80s Congress created a shell-game that spent the Trust Fund replacing the money with, get this: “special government securities”. The only major problem with those “special government securities” is that they are unmarketable, can’t be sold off on any market to anyone. Basically, the Trust Fund is filled with IOUs. So, what do you want in your old age? A country that has opened its borders to massive amounts of illegal aliens or perhaps a slim chance that someone might get a SS check when they are older. Of course, the ideal thing would be to phase out those entitlements before they break the country anyway.

 

Indeed, as the “Champion of the Constitution” Ron Paul has proposed, honoring that Constitutional document, an Amendment to end birthright citizenship. There is no contradiction in his adherence to that document and using the legal process to amend it, although there are always some that seem to slur such recommendations; of course the reasons for such slurs are obvious.

 

Concerning open borders, I believe that Dr. Paul has spoken some of the most rational reasons from protecting our Northern and Southern borders, not to mention our ports. The highest security interest any country can have are their own borders, our security interests certainly haven’t been served very well by stationing our troops around the world or intervening in over 200 countries since the late 1800s. Uncontrolled immigration of a particular danger to our interest on several levels, I believe that Dr. Paul has amply expressed those reasons.

 

It is estimated that the annual cost of caring for illegal immigrates in this country was hovering around $400 Billion last year, today I am sure it is far greater due to the various economic issues that are just beginning to plague this country. Almost 400,000 illegal aliens are incarcerated in our prisons at an enormous cost to us all. The estimated cost of the delivery of babies to illegal aliens are between $3 to $6 Billion, so despite what some would like for us to believe, it does cost a huge amount of public money, your money, to sustain a policy that has effectively turned aside from the legal obligation to the Citizens of this country.

 

Dr. Paul has stated that the current system is not only flawed, but very unfair in that it forces some to obey the law, spending years in the legal process of Citizenship while allowing others to effectively sidestep all legal obligations and the responsibility that comes from seeking Citizenship.

 

Concerning Dr. Paul changing his views on the subject of immigration, I dare say that there is probably not a soul reading this website that has not changed some view over the years, even those one may have held as sacrosanct at one time. I know I have; so that argument is nothing more than a rotten red herring tossed out, once again to cast doubt on the character of Dr. Paul. Sorry, once again, that argument is as weak as rain water.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Adam
Date: 2008-04-29 22:29:50

Great discussion.  I also agree, "Give me your tired, your poor your weak."  I have no problem with anyone that wants to come here and make a better living for themselves.  The problem I have is the handouts.  Stop the handouts is all I want. Oh yeah, and let's learn English please.

For those that think illegalsare killing wages and exporting dollars, well that is really you.  The American people want cheap stuff.  Look at the complaints on gas, rest of the world pays $5 a gallon, we pay $3.50 and we are about to subsidize it.  You won't spend $10 for a hammer when you can spend $5 for a crappy one made in China.  Think about where your money is going, who is benefitting.  The middle east and China.  Go to your local WalMart, Target, Bed Bath and Beyond, etc... Pick up the goods, if we don't make it here cheap we don't make it at all.  We need to stop government handouts and reduces taxes to be competitive.  China owns us now.  The global elite is China, a single move they could shut us off.  Dump our money on the world market and stop shipping us our goods.  We would be done for.

Also, you have a spelling / grammar error "causesgovernment"  in one of your paragraphs.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Common Sense CS
Date: 2008-04-30 04:35:37

Justin,

You wrote "I'm in agreement that Paul's 1988 stance is the correct stance but I'm willing too look past it because I think it would be too much for modern socialist Americans to swallow..."

His 1988 statement IS a socialist statement so I don't think it would be hard for them to swallow. Collectivism/Socialism/Communism kills liberty and nations, you only have to look at the downfall of previous nations/empires to see it... spreading the military too thin, having a central banking system/money not backed with anything, and welfare/socialist legislation(laws) where the government is expected to "take care of" (nanny) and interFEAR in daily lives.

Send the illegals home and take all the "able-bodied" on welfare/government assistance (those who "can't find/get a job" but are able to work) to fill their jobs. Problem solved. (ok I know it's not quite that easy but it's a start)

Just like pollution... why do we need the Kyoto to tell us to cut down? like Ron Paul says "just do it".

It's fine to want to help people out and everyone has a personal choice to do it but not to demand that your neighbor also give. A lot of people have already learned that giving is good and they do it often but it is up to each person to come to this realization on their own because once you start forcing people to give, you take away their choice to "do the right thing" and learn an important lesson and in turn cause resentment and rebellion. It's fine to be a socalist in our personal lives, but not in our government.

LEAD BY EXAMPLE, NOT BY FORCE!

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."~Jesus (Luke 6:31)

 

Report violation

---

Posted By: David Scott Lynn
Date: 2008-04-30 05:08:57

For those who like extremist positions, such as that Ron Paul is not allowed to modify his positions based on economic and political realities:

Hans Herman Hoppe said it best. ... If you truly believe in a libertarian, private property, minimal State society, then almost ALL property would be private, and very little -- if any -- would be owned by The State. Therefore, for anyone to enter the country, they would be landing on private property. The immigrant would need specific permission and an invitation from the owner of the specific property the immigrant wished to spend their time on. So, if you REALLY believe in an extremist form of libertarian immigration, start sending invitations to the foreigners YOU want to be visiting you on YOUR property, funded by YOUR wealth and resources. And YOU can get them a job and pay for all their health care, education, and all of that; and stop telling other people they are wrong not wanting to subsidize this mess. Let us know how it works out.

It is interesting how alleged anti-collectivists selectively pick statistics that ignore that all kinds of people are being negatively affected -- and taxed -- by this influx, yet Mexico will not allow ANYONE across their southern border without proper permission. But it is okay for The Country to accept immigrants, when I bet most of you don't have any illegal immigrants living in YOUR own house.

And if you like more State-Managed, Special Interest driven, Pseudo-Free Trade agreements that will destroy the U.S. Constitution via treaty (which has already been substantially achieved), why not consult with Karl Marx, who stated that a good way to destroy a country was with so-called free-trade. But remember, Marx, when commenting on capitalist systems, was referring to Mercantilism, not the free-enterprise system that took hold here in America (probably because he knew little about it). And why not study the history of the European Union, and the Coal and Steel agreements of the 1950's, which, Europeans were told (lied to) were merely about more trade and prosperity? Learn from them, and you can get tips on taking the world into an even more Transnationalist, Global Mercantilist, New World Order, just like they planned. And the North American plan, like NAFTA, is part of that plan, just like Henry Kissinger said. If they were truly FREE trade agreements, they would not need thousands of pages to describe exactly and precisely just how to do that free-trade. (Shades of European government a few centuries ago, where they had many pages of instructions on things like the State-approved system on how to make a sweater, or suffer a penalty if you deviate. THAT'S good for innovation.)

And how about a good lesson from the totalitarians throughout history. When a cultural group is too strong to erode from the inside out, let's ship in a bunch of very different people who have no understanding of that groups moral or cultural base (such as REAL free-enterprise, natural rights, property rights, rule of law, minimal state interference, and so on -- things which people of many other cultures, especially third world, have little knowledge of, let alone experience.) By importing massive numbers of such people (no matter how well-intended they might be), the core morality (or what is left of it) of the original group will be further eroded to the point which, like any biological structure, will lose its structure.  This is one reason why the USSR shipped so many ethnic groups to other places in the empire, to dilute the unique characteristics of certain groups who would not submit to collectivism so easily. ... If you do not think this is being done to this country, I think you are either very narrow in your reading or just too naive. You are buying into the Beltway Libertarian B.S.

For those who trust GW Bush and Gang to create their economic and political environment, Good Luck. 

Report violation

---

Posted By: nospintalk dot com
Date: 2008-04-30 06:21:12

Posted this on www.spunwire.com, thought it was a good article. There were some discrepancies in facts, but I understand why. I disagree with Ron Paul on so many issues, but I wanted him for president. He stands for what I stand for, which is getting the government back to where it needs to be.

Immigration is really two issues, so I don't like how it gets defined as one. Nothing at all wrong with legal immigrants. Illegal, however, is illegal. I don't feel like an illegal immigrant deserves any benefits at all while we have good citizens who can't get them. 

Report violation

---

Posted By: Justin Hollabaugh
Date: 2008-04-30 06:44:34

Common Sense CS,

How is the absence of government policy equal to socialism?

 As I alluded to in my previous post, the biggest problem with "illegal aliens" is the effect, real or perceived, on the economy. However the biggest problem with economy and more specifically the earnings of the middle and poor classes is the distortion of the Federal Reserve as it plays it's sleight of hand tricks with monetary policy.

If wages were paid with sound money  and there were no "welfare" systems to draw in immigrants looking for automatic handouts (I'm not in the least against charity, but government by definition can NOT be a charity organization) I think you'd find the playing field quite a bit more level.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Common Sense CS
Date: 2008-04-30 07:25:24

Justin,

Sorry, I read his original statement wrong . And I agree with your post. :)

Ron Paul explained this himself...

 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.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 23, 2007

Report violation

---

Posted By: Doug Eberhardt
Date: 2008-04-30 08:54:44

“All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.”

Pat Paulsen

Report violation

---

Posted By: RickSp
Date: 2008-04-30 10:41:51

Again does anyone care to share any facts related to how how undocumented immigrants are putting a burden on our economy?  Opinion and prejudice are well and good but does anyone actually have any documentation for all these claims?

How about this - the Texas Comptroller found that undocumented immigrants contributed $17.7 billion to that states economy and that state revenues collected from undocumented immigrants exceeded what was spent on services for them by $424.7 million. This is from the Texas Comptroller's report:  UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IN TEXAS: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy
[link edited for length]

Oops. According to their study illegal immigrants were a positive contribution to the economy of Texas and paid more in taxes that they used in benefits.

The argument that undocumented immigrants are doing damage to the economy is not based on fact. 

Report violation

---

Posted By: Randy Dixon
Date: 2008-05-01 00:30:06

I didn't read all the comments but there are some misconceptions. Open borders is a libertarian belief, but it we don't exist in a libertarian society. It is true that we shouldn't compromise in principle to fit society but it doesn't mean that we can ignore it. We have to work to achieve a libertarian government, this requires steps, and it requires sequential steps, you can't start in the middle and hope for the correct result, all you will do is discredit your ultimate goal. We can't have open borders AND have a welfare state.  We must dismantle the latter first. Second, Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, as am I, not a libertarian. Third, the 10th amendment does allow for birthright citizenship, it allows for the citizenship of people born under the jurisdiction of the US to be US citizens. Jurisdiction does not imply a geographical boundary but a legal boundary, this is why children born to US citizens abroad are US citizens and children of illegals born in the US should not be. However, it is good to find people that are critical of politicians and attempt to hold them accountable. I think we need to be mindful though that "The perfect is the enemy of the good", that is a problem that has plaqued the libertarianism and the freedom movement for years. RP has, more than any candidate in my memory, been able to get people to forego the perfect for the very good.

Report violation

---

Posted By: badmedia
Date: 2008-05-01 10:51:46

If you've studied why Ron Paul has changed that position, then you can understand why.   After hearing his position, I have also altered mine in agreement.

I am still in favor of immigration.   It has always been my thoughts that I'll put them to work for me if they want work.    However, the problem is the current entitlement system.

 We can't afford to have an open border and a welfare state at the same time.    Doing so will only increase the entiitlements, and the burden on the American people.    Which we can't even pay now with what we have.      And it's not just that immigrants shouldn't get such benefits, but rather than nobody should be getting the entitlements as they do now.   

 So, as long as we have the entitlement systems, then I have to agree with Ron Paul.   We can't have open borders if it is not a free and constitutional government.    Ron Paul recognizes we can't do away with the entitlement system overnight.     So, his plan of action is pretty simple.

 #1 close the borders to stop more illegal immigration.

#2  Wing people off the entitlement system.  You can't go around throwing grandma on the streets, but we can start to work out of it and quit promoting systems which call for more people to rely on the entitlements.

 #3  Once the entitlement system is gone, then you can once again open the borders to allow immigration to the country and more workers.  Which is good all the way around.

 I was like you were, this was an issue I disagreed with him on.   But after looking at why his position has changed, I do agree with him.

Report violation

---

Posted By: RickSp
Date: 2008-05-02 08:20:53

You hear it repeated over and over again  -   "We can't afford to have an open border and a welfare state at the same time." 

It may be supported by fear or emotion, but it is not supported by facts.  Most immigrants, legal or illegal, are not eligible for welfare. Most studies show that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in services.  I posted a link to a study by the State of Texas Comptroller which shows that illegals pay more than their share in Texas, a border state with a large illegal population. Even studies by anti-immigrant groups using highly questionable assumptions and cooked figures show costs that are tiny in relation to the economy as a whole.

 The truth is we need to reform both our immigration laws and those related to welfare entitlements. But until then the statement "we can't afford to have an open border and a welfare state at the same time,"  is simply false. 

Why is it that this falsehood is repeated endlessly?  Can someone explain this to me, preferably supported by facts?

Report violation

---

Posted By: DJ
Date: 2008-05-04 09:40:27

This is from the the spring issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. It's links many sources to show how Illegal immigration, which includes birthright citizenship,  or more specifically "anchor babies",  and other issues that is placing a burden on hospitals -- even to the point of shutting some down.

http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf

 The Comptroller's report also fails to estimate costs of legally born children of illegals. In her own words, there are "uncertainties". Indeed, there are.

"As mentioned earlier, the Comptroller’s office recognizes that there are costs associated with the legally resident children of undocumented immigrants. The Comptroller has chosen not to estimate these costs or revenues due to uncertainties concerning the estimated population and the question of whether to include the costs and revenues associated only with the first generation or to include subsequent generations, all of which could be seen as costs."

Maybe I missed something, but she didn't seem to say anything about medical costs.

Report violation

---

Posted By: RickSp
Date: 2008-05-04 14:37:01

There are unquestionably costs associated with illegal aliens and their children.  My point is that the claims made about illegals creating huge welfare burdens just aren't supported by fact.   The Texas Comptroller's Report that I linked to above - "UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IN TEXAS: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy"  suggests that immigrants prove a net financial benefit to the state.

 This is not to suggest that our welfare system may not need to be reformed, only that the claim that we cannot have relatively open immigration policies and our existing welfare program, is simply wrong. 

Report violation

---

Posted By: EW
Date: 2008-06-11 12:06:40

RON PAUL LAWS

 

I sure that the Ron Paul Laws guy has a far better canidate than RP like McCain or Obama!

Report violation

---