Thread: Ron Paul on Immigration

Originally Posted by nntrixie

He even had the audacity to refer to illegal immigrants as immigrants.



You know if Ron Paul, or any candidate is wrong about something in anyone's opinion - then certainly say so. To spin something or pretend it says something it doesn't is just wrong. That won't solve our problems in this country.

For far too many years, we have voted and run our country, based on spin, buzz words, and sound bites. That's suicidal, and we should be able to see that by now.

Yes, Darlene was right. If they are allowed under the law to come and work - they are legal immigrants - not illegals. Also, they come and go - by law - that makes them legal immigrants or temporary workers.

We have two chances of fixing illegal immigration - Paul and Hunter. It is one thing to discuss the pros and cons on each - quite another to spin, nitpik. That is going to get us Romney - or Obama - maybe - Huckabee.

I agree that we have over 300 million chances to fix criminal immigration Americans don’t want the criminals and truthfully it’s not any new president’s choice and right now not one of them can fix it just buy producing the best plan
I feel that each one of the candidates should be not only working on the campaign trail, but also working on the problems that we have facing this country currently… but not one of them will and not one of the ones that drop will do anything this year at all.

They can fart around and run for office all they want, while the rest of America fixes the mess

The problem I have with Paul's stance on immigration isn't that it's bad-it isn't that bad when juxtoposed against the positions of the candidates we'll, unfortunately, probably be choosing from-but that it's philosophically unsustainable.

He doesn't have any philosophical objection to allowing 2, or 3, or 4, million immigrants into this country on an annual basis, provided we eliminate the welfare state in its entirety. He has no practical objection to a guest-worker program-which is one of the most devastating ideas to come down the pike since the Mongols decided to convert to Islam-so long as it's uncoupled from amnesty.

It just won't work. This is a Reason/Cato/Wall St. Journal view of the issue that would end up destroying this country in the long run.

He doesn't have any philosophical objection to allowing 2, or 3, or 4, million immigrants into this country on an annual basis, provided we eliminate the welfare state in its entirety. He has no practical objection to a guest-worker program-which is one of the most devastating ideas to come down the pike since the Mongols decided to convert to Islam-so long as it's uncoupled from amnesty.


I haven't heard him put a figure on the number, I'll take you word for it.

I don't want any temporary workers of any kind - but we have to be realistic - we are going to have foreign workers - for a while - legal or illegal. That's a bitter pill - I know.

The fact is, we have had temporary workers, legally, for a very long time in this country - at least here in Texas.

I don't understand making a decision to not vote for someone because they are being practical and realistic about the situation.

This man doesn't believe illegals should be here working, using freebies and getting citizenship. He believes we should enforce the laws and if that is done, they will be gone - to a great extent. That would be very cost effective, and not embroil us in millions of expensive (taxpayer funded) lawsuits that keep them here for years picking our pockets.

Now given we are going to have foreign workers - we really are. What we have now is 30/40 million illegals - very costly people - working, using welfare, not obeying our laws, getting educated. I would much rather have 2-4 million workers who come here for a specified time, with employers being responsible for their upkeep (no welfare - no taxpayer expenses), without families.


I'm thinking it might be something else besides immigration that bothers you - and that is OK - but his stance on immigration seems pretty right on and as I said, practical.

Darlene wrote:

If you hate RP so much, just ignore treads with his name in. You don't see anyone else tearing your candidates down.

Not on the immigration/border security issue because he has the right idea on those issues. However, I've seen him ripped down one side and up the other on the Iraq war issue by the Paul supporters. Remember though, ALIPAC is a legal immigration web site, not an anti-war web site.

For your information I don't hate Paul, I just think he would be the wrong choice for President. As for ignoring his threads.......well, I could say the same thing to you in regards to my posts. IMHO, anyone that is not totally blinded by Paul loyalty should be able to see where his interest are on the border security issue. His Libertarian Party leanings are clearly shining like a beacon on the hill.

Quote from The Libertarian Party platform: "The LP has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America." Hmmm........a quality fence, such as Hunter's double-layered fence, would definitely impede the free and open flow of "immigrants" across our borders.

I haven't seen anyone 'rip' Hunter for his stand on war - at least I haven't, certainly not intentionally.

I disagree with him - but have also stated he has earned the right to believe the way he does based on the fact his son has had 3, I think, rotations over there.

The fact that Ron Paul doesn't want a fence doesn't sway me one bit. I am leary of the fence anyway. I would much rather put emphasis on interior enforcement and Border Patrol enhancement than a fence.

I may not be in favor of the fence for different reasons than Paul, however. To me, it is going to be an expensive boondoggle that our government will deliberately sabotage as they have every other law we have on the books. How can we trust them to build a viable fence and allow the BP to patrol it effectively when they haven't done anything but refuse to enforce laws and not help the states who are enforcing them?

Perhaps Duncan Hunter, if President, would see the fence is handled correctly - but I don't think any of the others would.

If I can make a suggestion. I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet, but I have spent a lot of time researching Ron Paul. Go to his website "Ron Paul 2008" and look through his videos. I have listened to just about every word he has said, and he makes more sense than any other candidate. This man doesn't have a dishonest bone in his body, he only wants what's best for this country. If the government was run by the Constitution the way our forefathers planned, all of these things on immigration would be a non issue. There would be no big business lobbyists, thus no cheap labor. Take away all the benefits for illegals and they would have no reason to be here.

The problem with people not accepting Ron Paul is because they listen to sound bites made by him, but never take the time to listen to why he feels that way. His stance on all the issues are right out there for everyone to see and if you take the time to listen to him, he makes sense. He hasn't changed his view in all these years. That alone should tell you something about this man. He reimburses the treasury for unspent monies in his state. He has refused every congressional raise. He's opted out of the congressional retirement plan. Look for yourself.

Heres how I see it, paul has the right idea about getting the ones here to go home, if their kids are not made citizens, if their mexican citizen kids can not get into our schools, if they can not get welfare of anykind, if we have a work verification program, I believe most of them will leave.

At this time I must disagree with paul on the fence, the reason....we have to much crime on the border, drug cartel, gang members, and terrorist from all around the world using our southern border to get into our country.

at one time people from mexico did freely come over to the border states and work with out their whole family and then when the season was done they went home.

But because of the changing times this is not realistic anymore, we have to many people who wish us harm for that border to not be secured.

That said I believe Paul will listen to the people and can be made to change his mind on it. I think someone should ask him fine, if you leave the border open how do you fight the drug cartels and keep out terrorist....sounds like a simple question to me.

I also agree that Paul is our biggest chance for the kind of changes this country needs and I also believe, he believes "We the People" should run this country and it not all up to the ones who think they know what is best for "We the People" and this is why "We the People" is so stressed in the constitution.

Ron Paul has said that the first thing he would do is secure the border. I don't think it matters if you have a fence or guards or technology as long as the border is secure. Ron Paul thinks the fence is expensive and unreasonable, but there are other ways to secure that border, so I don't believe he's soft on this. Watch this video.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/video-networ ... &video=109

SOSADFORUS wrote:

Heres how I see it, paul has the right idea about getting the ones here to go home, if their kids are not made citizens, if their mexican citizen kids can not get into our schools, if they can not get welfare of anykind, if we have a work verification program, I believe most of them will leave.

To my knowledge, Paul does not support the mandatory enrollment of employers into the so-called work verification program. Honestly, I'm not aware of anything he has actually supported that would hold employers personally responsible for hiring illegal labor.

tiny wrote:

Ron Paul thinks the fence is expensive and unreasonable, but there are other ways to secure that border, so I don't believe he's soft on this.

Yeah, and he thinks it's offensive too (he has said as much). I say build the Hunter double-layered fence now - I'm not concerned with offending Mexico or the illegal aliens.

His stance on all the issues are right out there for everyone to see and if you take the time to listen to him, he makes sense.

Please check his voting record on illegal immigrant issues and border security. Paul says he want to secure the border, however, his voting record shows he's weak when it come down to actually voting on securing the border.