Thread: Ron Paul on Immigration

mw The law did work for many, many years = before our government decided they wanted to flood this country with illegals. It stopped being used. That may be farther back than many remember, but I do.

Now you can argue and nitpik, but you will have to admit they have not used the law in many years - not really.

Gee, the laws work when they want to do a Made for TV raid and pick up 10 - 20 - or in Pilgrim's case - 24. They work - when used. We can see that.

They aren't being used - except to flim flam the public - but they work when used.



shapka My personal preference would be no foreign workers - and it's possible with some honest work on the part of our government, telling employers how the cow ate the cabbage, 'encouraging' those on welfare, etc., to work - we may fix that. That won't happen overnight, though.

I also think the government - and industry - needs to work together to produce our own tech workers, teachers and RN's. There was a time they did this when certain skills were needed. That needs to happen again.

I have never called them 'guest workers'. That phrase makes me ill. Our government uses phrases for a reason and this is no difference. I always call them temporary workers.

nntrixie wrote:

Now you can argue and nitpik

Pot meet kettle.

Nice attempt at backing down from your statement:

It is funny that that same law worked for many, many years.

mw You are just arguing for the sake of arguing and not for exchange of ideas or discussion.

Rather than nitpiking, why don't you tell me where I am wrong.

nntrixie wrote:

mw You are just arguing for the sake of arguing and not for exchange of ideas or discussion.

Funny, I would say the exact same thing about you. Personally, I don't find you willing to exchange ideas or amendable to worthwhile discussion with me, not where border security is concerned. IMO, you are dead set in your thinking and quickly dismiss other ideas, suggestions, and opinions that don't conform to your way of thinking (when they come from me). With that said, it's your right to be opinionated and closed minded. As Sippy said earlier, I can be stubborn too (probably more so than you at times). I guess it's your continuous arguments against the need for a quality fence that is rubbing me the wrong way. I'm sorry about that - I really shouldn't let you get to me on the fence issue. I realize it's your right to have a different opinion than I on the subject. However, you may want to consider appreciating the fact that most of us want the double-layered fence.

This is strictly my opinion and I speak for no one but myself on this. Hmmm.........perhaps you feel the same way about me. Could it be possible that our disagreement on the need for a quality border fence is causing a personality conflict.

MW wrote:

As Sippy said earlier, I can be stubborn too (probably more so than you at times).

Hey MW, I hope you didn't take that wrong. I was including all of us (especially me!) in that statement because of all the presidential discussions we've had lately. Stubborn might be too harsh. I would really say it is just our own preferences. I am with you though on the fence issue, and this is where I disagree with Dr. Paul.
Honestly though, I am starting to think the fence will never get finished. Even if DH did win the presidency and somehow managed to get funding, I have a feeling the democratic congress would simply find another way to prevent it from happening.

I'm sorry about that - I really shouldn't let you get to me on the fence issue. I realize it's your right to have a different opinion than I on the subject. However, you may want to consider appreciating the fact that most of us want the double-layered fence.

No you shouldn't. We both want what is best for this country. I do believe you have misunderstood my discussion of the fence. I am not simply saying we shouldn't have one. I am saying we have to put this fence thing into the reality of the situation we have. I just want people to think about it - about all the aspects. Think about who is going to be responsible for building this. This President has been drug, very unwillingly to the immigration table. Do we really think he is going to build a fence that will work? He has thwarted our laws at every turn. He is making a mockery of our immigration laws by spending time, money and resources rounding up a half dozen at a time and doing a whitewash on his fellow Republican - Pilgrim's.

I consider this adminstration our enemy in this situation - therefore I am not going to take them at face value and say, "Oh, boy, they are going to build a fence that will work"

Also, without some real interior enforcement, and there's no way anyone can say we have that - unless the states get some going - we have enough here to destroy us already. A fence alone, won't save us.


We have to be realistic and imagine what we are going to get from this bunch.

And no, it doesn't bother me that most people want the fence. I am questioning the fence. I don't mind being in the minority - I have been swimming upstream for most of my life. I mind being wrong. I especially mind being wrong because I was unwilling to look behind the curtain.

[/b]This is strictly my opinion and I speak for no one but myself on this. Hmmm.........perhaps you feel the same way about me. Could it be possible that our disagreement on the need for a quality border fence is causing a personality conflict. [/b]

No, I don't think so. My goodness - how can one have a 'personality' conflict with someone you simply exchange posts with on the computer. I can disagree with someone's ideas - but not that someone. While I spend a lot of time on the computer - and I enjoy it - it's important to me - I live in the real world. When I have a personality conflict with someone - it has to be in person.

I don't insult someone unless I'm looking them in the eye and giving them choice of weapons - and anonymous internet exhcanges don't really fit the criteria.

So, no, I don't take it personal. I don't think you really do either.

But you are wrong - I do listen to your ideas. I haven't swayed you in any of my points - and I haven't considered you close minded or unwilling to listen. Just because you can't make someone change their minds, doesn't mean they are close minded or not listening.

You know, all this arguing about the fence is irrelevant. There is no money to build it, remember? The funding was stripped in committee.

Sippy wrote:

Hey MW, I hope you didn't take that wrong. I was including all of us (especially me!) in that statement because of all the presidential discussions we've had lately. Stubborn might be too harsh. I would really say it is just our own preferences. I am with you though on the fence issue, and this is where I disagree with Dr. Paul.
Honestly though, I am starting to think the fence will never get finished. Even if DH did win the presidency and somehow managed to get funding, I have a feeling the democratic congress would simply find another way to prevent it from happening.

I did not take what you said in a negative manner, not at all. Moreover, I don't think "stubborn" was too harsh a term. Heck, my wife tells me how stubborn I am at least once a week.

You're right to have your doubts about the fence. However, does that mean we should give up fighting for it? I disagree with you on what Hunter would be capable of doing on the fence should he be elected President of the United States. The man has a dogged determination that I've not seen in any presidential candidate for many years. Furthermore, the man has never given us any reason to doubt his word. Basically, he is mister consistent. The Fence Act is still law, and that alone is all Hunter would need to get the fence built. The recent Hutchinson amendment only gave the DHS more leeway in how to build it, but a Hunter administration could still build it as originally envisioned. The law, which is still on the books, will give Hunter the mandate he needs to build the fence the way he wants it built.

tiny wrote:

You know, all this arguing about the fence is irrelevant. There is no money to build it, remember? The funding was stripped in committee.

I'm sorry, I disagree. The fence is not irrelevant. Unfortunately money is a fleeting thing in Washington, it can appear as fast as it disappeared. The law requiring the fence is still there which means the possibility of getting the fence built still remains.

MW wrote:

You're right to have your doubts about the fence. However, does that mean we should give up fighting for it? I disagree with you on what Hunter would be capable of doing on the fence should he be elected President of the United States. The man has a dogged determination that I've not seen in any presidential candidate for many years. Furthermore, the man has never given us any reason to doubt his word. Basically, he is mister consistent. The Fence Act is still law, and that alone is all Hunter would need to get the fence built. The recent Hutchinson amendment only gave the DHS more leeway in how to build it, but a Hunter administration could still build it as originally envisioned. The law, which is still on the books, will give Hunter the mandate he needs to build the fence the way he wants it built.

MW, I did not mean to imply that Duncan would not continue to fight for the fence, I know he would fight to the death on that. I simply meant that if he were to get elected president, with a democratic controlled congress, we know the dems would fight him all the way on this issue. I have no doubts whatsoever that DH would continue the battle to get it built.
I am with you on the fence issue, and I believe it to be a necessary step to stopping illegal immigration.

Sippy wrote:

MW, I did not mean to imply that Duncan would not continue to fight for the fence, I know he would fight to the death on that. I simply meant that if he were to get elected president, with a democratic controlled congress, we know the dems would fight him all the way on this issue. I have no doubts whatsoever that DH would continue the battle to get it built.

I know you didn't imply that we shouldn't fight for the fence. Forgive me if I gave the appearance that you did. Darn, it just seems like a couple folks have put me on the defensive a lot recently on the need for a quality border fence.

You're probably right, Hunter more than likely would have a fight on his hands, but I honestly believe it's a fight he is more than capable of winning because he would have the support of the majority of Americans. With us (American majority) behind him, he'll get the fence built. I wish more folks had a little more faith in Hunter's and his capabilities.