Thread: Does presidential candidate want more immigration?

Originally Posted by agrneydgrl

I guess I should say that not what he said but what he meant.

What he said is what he meants - listen closer

Make the 30 million legal and bring in more
Good bye - middle class welcome new third world class
Good for the corporations

For Ron Pauls stand on the issues go to:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/borde ... on-reform/

Border Security and Immigration Reform

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

Originally Posted by MW

I can see no circumstance that would justify an expansion of immigration beyond what we already have.

Just as Ron Paul said, not in this current economic situation. I agree, not now and I agree a decrease would be in order to undo the imbalance caused by all the gate jumpers.

However, "if" in the future, when we have control of the situatuion, can properly regulate and enforce our immigration laws and "if" the economy demands additional labor them I'm OK with that. However, at this moment in time, things are so messed up that I would not agree to increasing the number of visa holders, immigrant or non-immigrant.

I don't care what industry demands.

Besides that, we should be encouraging American students to fill those jobs in the futre but they are being held down in school by non-English speakers. We are not leaving the the ESLs behind but they are dragging us down with them. We should be focusing on our kids and not how to bring more foreign labor in. Back in my day, if you couldn't keep up, you flunked.

Dixie

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

"Much more generous in our immigration policy."

No thanx.

1 Million+ a year is quite enough.......In fact, more "generous" than the rest of the world COMBINED.

I didn't like that either. It's almost like he is saying "if the conditions are right, like the economy- blah blah blah, Americans would be more open to illegal immigration. Ron Paul knows this is a huge issue with the majority of Americans, so I think he skims over the subject, just to enough to feed the crowds what they want to hear, but he is WISHY-WASHY, and I don't see him getting really serious about the problem.

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

Originally Posted by CitizenJustice

We need an immigration moratorium of at least 5 yers!!!!!!!!

I secound that

I third that.

Originally Posted by butterbean

I didn't like that either. It's almost like he is saying "if the conditions are right, like the economy- blah blah blah, Americans would be more open to illegal immigration. Ron Paul knows this is a huge issue with the majority of Americans, so I think he skims over the subject, just to enough to feed the crowds what they want to hear, but he is WISHY-WASHY, and I don't see him getting really serious about the problem.

I agree 100%.

Since this is only a snippet, I don't know what he meant exactly.

I don't think 'being generous with our immigration policy' means leaving our borders open.

Just don't think that is what he meant.

I almost understand disagreements about the person for who we vote, but just my opinion, anyone who is going to work for us will have to be someone outside the mainstream. I just don't think any of the good ole boys are going to do anything differently.

So, I really wish we could discuss the candidates openly, respectfully and not with sound bites. That kind of decision making is another of the things that bought us the trouble we now have.

This is another case of MW taking a 'speech' and selectively pointing out a verse or two without the full context of Ron Paul's belief. IF MW truly knew where Ron Paul stood and what he believes in, it would make perfect sense.

The assumption is that "we could" as a nation be more generous with LEGAL immigration from ALL over... asia, europe etc.. and that the immigration WOULD NOT be cheap labour, nor immigration that is uneducated and crime riddled.

I truly do not know why MW is so fearful. Probably because Ron Paul has a top ten book on the NY Times best sellers list on foreign Policy and economics or why Ron Paul is head and shoulders about Duncan Hunter in fundraising. So while Ron Paul is talking freedom, Hunter is talking war.

Anyways. Immigration IS NOT BAD. Its not. My italian grandparents immigrated here. BUT because of the open borders, lack of enforced laws, the obvious misrepresentation of certain countries, the collapse of the dollar etc... immigration is not possible in its current form.. BUT if the conditions were met in which america was NOT manipulated by the FED and the Open border lobbyists and NAU proponents then we can look at immigration as NOT the evil it is now and we can be more open with the number of LEGAL immigrants. That is NOT bad, and it certainly is NOT wishywashy. RON PAUL has ALWAYS stressed... NO AMNESTY!!! Look at the first debate, Ron Paul flatly said "NO AMNESTY. When you subsidize something you get more of it!"

So, MW is just a demogogue and using "LEGAL IMMIGRATION" as a needle to drive an invalid point home.

I find it SOO telling when there is a plethora of information on Ron's stances on ALL issues on his site.. ronpaul2008.com/articles and ronpaullibrary.com --- and you are all listening to some dude who is fearful.

Think of the source before you take things out of context. MW constantly posts anti-paul stuff. So, one would be a little cautious when looking to his posts for definitive knowledge.

Why do you insist on turning everything into a personal attack, BrightNail. Can't you have a civil discussion without getting personal? I have no problem with you attempting to argue against the facts I present, however, I do have a problem with you personally attacking my integrity when I present those facts. If you've got a legitimate argument, than present it. However, please stick to the topic being discussed vice going off on a tirade. Thank you.

RON PAUL has ALWAYS stressed... NO AMNESTY!!! Look at the first debate, Ron Paul flatly said "NO AMNESTY.

According to NumberUSA, Ron Paul has voted on amnesty before. I trust the facts presented by NumberUSA. They are probably the most respected and persistent leader in the fight against illegal immigration.

Voted FOR Section 245(i), a form of amnesty
for illegal aliens in 2002

Rep. Paul voted FOR H RES 365, which was brought up and passed in a new form in March of 2002. The vote in favor of the bill was a vote in favor of rewarding illegal aliens via a four-month reinstatement of Section 245(i). That is an expired immigration provision that allows illegal aliens with qualified relatives or employers in the U.S. to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to be allowed to stay in this country without fear of deportation until their turn arrives for a green card years, and even decades, later. The illegal aliens also would not have to go through the usual security screening in U.S. embassies in their home countries. The lowest estimate from supporters of the bill was that some 200,000 illegal aliens would benefit. H RES 365 included language that would implement some important visa-tracking regulations helpful to discouraging illegal immigration. But all of those provisions had already been passed previously in H.R. 3525, making the assistance to illegal aliens the sole purpose of the bill.

Rep. Paul was one of 275 Representatives who voted in favor of the 245(i) amnesty. The bill narrowly passed by a vote of 275 to 137 (a two-thirds majority was needed in order to pass).

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfil ... &VIPID=787

Amnesty is amnesty, and there were 137 U.S. Congressman that recognized that fact and voted against the bill. Unfortunately, Ron Paul was not one of them.

This is another case of MW taking a 'speech' and selectively pointing out a verse or two without the full context of Ron Paul's belief.

Nope, this is simply a case of MW presenting the facts, sharing his opinion, and allowing other other to arrive at their own conclusion.

So while Ron Paul is talking freedom, Hunter is talking war.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." Ronald Reagan

"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation." Douglas MacArthur

Think of the source before you take things out of context. MW constantly posts anti-paul stuff. So, one would be a little cautious when looking to his posts for definitive knowledge.

I've never posted anything but fact. Whether it be Paul's own words or his voting record. Furthermore, I've certainly never personally attacked someone for posting actual facts. Actually, I purposely attempt to avoid making my disagreement with others views personal. I may not always be successful, however, I do try.

We need not read into his statements. It was clear from the video that he thinks we need to be more generous in our immigration policy. he did not specify from which continent....just "more generous".........We could perceivably have more from Europe and Asian, BUT that would neccessitate that we are more stringent in who we allow into our nation, not more generosity.

What we already have is a "generous" immigration policy. We would have to be less generous for the policy to make more sense, and for First Worlders to have a better shake. Kinda like the way it was before Ted Kennedy and the like turned the policy on its head.