Thread: Ron Paul on Immigration

Ron Paul on Immigration

If economy were good, there'd be no immigration problem. (Dec 2007)

Amend Constitution to remove aliens’ birthright citizenship. (Dec 2007)

Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior. (Dec 2007)

No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007)

Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Sep 2007)

No amnesty, but border fence isn't so important. (Jun 2007)

We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more. (Jun 2007)

Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)

End all incentives and amnesty for illegal immigrants. (Jan 2006)

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)

Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)

Sponsored bill banning student visas from terrorist nations. (Jan 2003)

Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)

Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)

Government services in English only. (Mar 2008)

Declare English as the official language of the US. (Feb 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm#Immigration

I hope his son isn't like Daddy.

There's some good stuff there, but then there are a few that are totally opposite. Weird. Kinda schizophrenic.

Ron Paul was one of two who signed the ALIPAC Pledge against Amnesty for IA's during the Presidential Campaigns.

Ron has a pretty good track record and a hell of a lot better then what we have now in most cases. There are some things I may disagree with him on,but that is normal...

Rand Paul said that he did not think that the Civil Rights Act should apply to private businesses. In other words, private business should be free to discriminate against any race they want.


I don't care if he is on the correct side when it comes to immigration. The guy is a racist. I hope he does not get a single vote.

Ron Paul was lacking the personality needed to compete in 2008. It was unfortunate too because we would not be where we are today if he had been elected. It was the same with Dennis Kunich, he was portrayed as a buffoon by the other primary candidates, especially during the debates.

When Ron or Dennis were lucky enough to even have a debate question asked of them, the attitudes and facial expressions of the other candidates shown by the TV cameras encouraged the audience watching to agree with what they thought, these two were jokes, clowns, and downright stupid. This behavior is an old body language trick and it worked. It meant that two men with excellent ideas and experience that America needed were lost in the shuffle. That was the intent and it was successful. We never got to decide on their merits, we never really got to hear them.

Our election process will never be any different either, not as long as it's played as entertainment. And actually, with all the scammers, buffoons and cheaters in politics these days, why should we expect anything else?

Originally Posted by Bettybb

Rand Paul said that he did not think that the Civil Rights Act should apply to private businesses. In other words, private business should be free to discriminate against any race they want.


I don't care if he is on the correct side when it comes to immigration. The guy is a racist. I hope he does not get a single vote.

Your use of the word Racist against Rand Paul is unfounded and unfair.

Just because he does not think the Federal Government should tell him who to hire or promote does not make him a racist.

Do you believe the Firemen who got the highest score on their test but were not promoted because a black person was not in the group were fairly treated ?

Originally Posted by uniteasone

Ron has a pretty good track record and a hell of a lot better then what we have now in most cases. There are some things I may disagree with him on,but that is normal...

Agreed. You're never going to find a candidate (or very rarely) that you agree with 100% of the time. If you disagree with the candidate on 20% of what they say, it's still a heck of a lot better than the candidate you disagree with 95%.

Some people seem to lose sight of this come election time. For example, if you have a candidate you agree with 98%, but that candidate has no chance of getting elected, it's still better to vote for the candidate you agree with 80% who has a good chance of getting elected, rather than split the vote and let the candidate you agree with 0% get elected. Some is better than none. It's not ideal, but it's the real world we live in.

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Originally Posted by Bettybb

Rand Paul said that he did not think that the Civil Rights Act should apply to private businesses. In other words, private business should be free to discriminate against any race they want.


I don't care if he is on the correct side when it comes to immigration. The guy is a racist. I hope he does not get a single vote.

Your use of the word Racist against Rand Paul is unfounded and unfair.

Just because he does not think the Federal Government should tell him who to hire or promote does not make him a racist.

Do you believe the Firemen who got the highest score on their test but were not promoted because a black person was not in the group were fairly treated ?

Ditto! What it means to me is that he does not believe in government imposed quotas under the guise of promoting multi-culturism and diversity!

He actually believes the best person for the job should be hired, irrespective of the color of his skin. If that makes him a racist, then the meaning of the word racist has gone astray!