Thread: Ron Paul Unplugged: Cutting Benefits for Illegal Immigrants

Ron Paul Unplugged: Cutting Benefits for Illegal Immigrants
John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul on Amnesty, Immigration
By JOHN STOSSEL and GENA BINKLEY
Dec. 12, 2007 —

Over the last few months, I've heard from hundreds of viewers who said that I should interview unconventional Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. So I did.

In our interview, published exclusively on ABCNEWS.com, we talk about the Iraq war, when war is justified, the proper role of government, health care, drug use, prostitution, gay marriage, and more.

In this segment, we discuss illegal immigration. You can watch the full video by clicking here.

Opposing Amnesty, Denying Benefits
Paul, R-Texas, strongly opposes granting "amnesty" to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States today. So I asked him what he'd do with all those immigrants. Would he try to arrest all of them?

"I don't think anybody could find 'em. I don't think anybody knows where they are," he said. "But if they come for welfare benefits, and you know they're illegal, deny them the benefits."

That's the crux of Paul's approach &3151; deny the immigrants the welfare and social services that many of them now receive.

"Get rid of the subsidies," he said. "You subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it."

Paul wants to make the United States a far less attractive destination for illegal immigrants looking for free things.

"You promise 'em amnesty, promise 'em, that, no sweat, you can get medical care and free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps and Social Security  you're gonna get more of it," he said.

Rejecting the Birthright Law
Paul also objects to the so-called birthright law, which grants automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants in this country.

"I don't like to reward people who sneak in for that purpose, and get on the welfare rolls," he said.

But, I asked, isn't that a right spelled out in the U.S. Constitution?

The 14th Amendment says that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Paul thinks we're getting the Constitution wrong.

"I think there's confusion on interpreting the 14th Amendment," he said. "It says that if you're under the jurisdiction of the United States, you have a right to citizenship if you're born here. If you step over the border and you're illegal, are you really under the jurisdiction? There's a question on that, and I want to clarify it."

Paul's opponents for the GOP nomination have accused each other of going easy on illegal immigration.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., accuses former Republican Mayor Rudy Giulian of New York. of having presided over a "sanctuary city" when he was New York's mayor, while Giuliani accuses Romney of employing illegal immigrants at his home.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., came under enormous criticism from many in his party when he co-sponsored an immigration reform bill with Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.

Paul has a tough stance on immigration, but that doesn't mean he wants to seal off this country from the outside world. He said he's not opposed to immigration at all, just illegal immigration, and that we should let in more immigrants legally.

"I think we could be much more generous with our immigration," he told me. But, he added, "we don't need illegal immigration. We don't need to reward people who get in front of the line."

Paul also told me he opposes building a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. He said he only voted for a bill that included a fence, because it also took on the amnesty issue.

"I voted for that bill to stop the amnesty, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/ ... 423&page=1

What exactly does he find so offensive about a fence, precisely?

Originally Posted by Shapka

What exactly does he find so offensive about a fence, precisely?

I think I would like to know that as well. With out of control illegal entry and drug smuggling into this country, a free and clear path terroriists are taking in here, and the all too apparent threat that Mexico and other Latin countries pose now that the "friendly neighbor" act has been dropped, a physical barrier along our border is not offensive. It is quite necessary.

I'm also not thrilled with his contention that we need to be more "generous" with our immigration policy. We are already extremely generous in terms of allowing legal immigrants into this counttry and, unfortunately, even that, I believe, needs to be re-thought now. Times have changed and the US has become the land of limited opportunity as more and more jobs are lost to other countries. There is no longer enough to go around and I'm sorry, but we need to take care of our own first.

The aspect of being more generous with immigration concerns me also - I don't understand. It could be if we got rid of illegals and those problems, we might be able to see a need for more - but that bothers me.

As for the fence, unless it is coupled with interior enforcement, I don't see it.

The only thing they have decided for sure about the fence is that they are in a big hurry to condemn and take property from people who live along the border.

Without interior enforcement, we could stop anyone else from ever coming across that border, and this country would still be lost. Every day more anchor babies are born, every day more anchor babies reach voting age, every day more illegals marry citizens, every day more and more LaRaza types (bolstered by the large illegal population) get in power in our governments.

And worse yet, I believe every day, our government gives out more and more green cards and citizenship papers to these illegals.

We are putting all our eggs into the one basket of a fence solving all our problems, and it won't.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

We are putting all our eggs into the one basket of a fence solving all our problems, and it won't.

Like my grandad used to say:

"Who's we? Do you have a turd in your pocket?"

The fence is only one aspect of reducing illegal immigration, but it is obviously an important one and the OBL shills know it.

"I voted for that bill to stop the amnesty, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive."

Offensive? Offensive!?! Offensive is taking campaign donations from white supremacist groups and refusing to return the money.

That's a little offensive - we used to say 'frog'.

We are the country and the people. The government is pretending it wants this fence and everyone is pushing for this fence while the immigration people are playing games with interior enforcement.

I don't know who all the 'OBL shills' are - I do know our federal government - especially ICE is the biggest - you know the ones we are trusting to build a fence.

Although, I question the effacacy of the fence, especially without interior enforcement, I question there is a real effort to build this fence.

We are given stories of the rounding up of illegals (15 and 20 at at time), and detaining them. We need to be rounding them up by the hundreds, and deporting them = not detaining them.

It's apparent to me we are being flim-flammed on the interior enforcement, and I think it is no different on the fence.

Time will tell - of course time is something we don't have.

Each day more and more anchor babies are being born, each day more and more pro-illegals are gaining power in government, local to federal level, every day we don't enforce the laws, we are loosing ground.

To me, it is just suicidal to not give some thought to all aspects of this and someone should have the right to suggest that.

In places where we do have a fence it is useless,, they are going over and under them without any restrictions!!
The ones that are after a free ride will keep coming untill our
judicial system stops blatantly ignoring the word ILLEGAL and we stop
giving nondeserving people things for nothing , subsidies or whatever else
you want to call it , it has to STOP.
The drug cartells know where the money is and untill our judicial
system stops ignoring the word ILLEGAL they will continue to also
pollute our system and streets . coming back into our country with drugs and whatever else they where already thrown out of here for alredy!
Some of the people accused or caught back in spring trying to atack
the army base in Conn. where in the laws grasps around 50 TIMES!
Prosecute the ILLEGALS because they are doing something ILLEGAL and they will GO AWAY , a perfect example , project WETBACK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

SecureTheBorder wrote:

The fence is only one aspect of reducing illegal immigration, but it is obviously an important one and the OBL shills know it.

BINGO! We have a winner. You're absolutely right, the fence is just portion of the complete package, a piece of the puzzle if you will. However, it is an important part that can't be overlooked.

keyteem wrote:

In places where we do have a fence it is useless,, they are going over and under them without any restrictions!!

That's because the fence shown on CNN that many have bee watching isn't the Duncan Hunter double-layered fence with cameras, sensors, stadium lighting, and high-speed border patrol road between layers. Trust me, the illegals, smugglers, and potential terrorist aren't crossing the Hunter fencing with ease. They've found it's much easier to go around that specific fencing. The San Diego fence, which Hunter built incidently, has reduced smuggling of people and narcotics by 90% and crime rate dropped 53%.

Sure, the fence is not a solve-all solution, but it is an important part to gaining control over our borders

You may find this intersting:

http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=19

Bingo!! As I said, the biggest shills being our very own government - especially ICE - so we believe they are really going to build a fence, build one that will work and build it soon enough to work.

They are going to play with us, divert us from interior enforcement, maybe take land - and play the waiting game - until after the election - until the NAU is a done deal -