Thread: I Was Wrong About Ron Paul On Immigration

SOSADFORUS wrote:

Our Military on the border is not even an issue, we don't need Military on the border, does everyone think the the border patrol and the National guard are so enept, come on....

No, most of us don't think the BP and NG are enept, however, we do feel there aren't enough of them. I'm in complete support of sending 20-30 thousand fully equiped military troops to the border immediately. A couple thousand armored assault vehicles and a couple hundred AH-64A/D Apache Attack Helicopter would be nice too. We need to secure the border now, not 5, 10, or 15 years from now. Hiring and training more BP agents takes time, time we can ill afford. Also, we currently need more than can actually be hired. Once operational control of the border is obtained, we can then withdrawal our military and leave border security to the border patrol. We need immediate action, not stringing along by the U.S. Congress. Plus, we need to somehow get Duncan Hunter's double-layered fence back on the agenda. The fence will go along way in helping us maintain operational control of the border once control is achieved.

I agree with Duncan Hunters fence, but I believe we have enough national guard, we have 50 states pull some from each state. At this time the military is streched to the hilt, remember we are fighting Bushes war.

I don't know if we have enough BPor not. One thing is very apparent, the ones we have are not being allowed to do their jobs. They work under the constant threat of being persecuted and imprisoned if they do their jobs.

Let's turn them loose and let them do their jobs.

The NG could also help - but not just in filing papers - but in actually guarding the border. If this country is going to be the world's policeman, then I would think border guard duty would be so really good OJT.

But we are going to have interior enforcement to back them up. IT's unfair to keep all the perks and enticements in place and then expect them to stem the tide.

The government has done everything it can to make sure there is no enforcement and only a semblence of border security.

Again, for those who think states' rights are out in left field, anything substantive that has been done to thrwart illegal immigration has been done on a state and local level. Given the right to enforce state laws, make more laws, without being hauled into court by some government funded pro-illegal group every day, we would be well on our way to cleaning up this mess. It might never have happened in the first place.

Originally Posted by MW

AngelaTC wrote:

The bigger issue is that the Constitution doesn't even give the federal government the right to regulate drugs.

For goodness sakes, the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified on June 21, 1788. Does anyone actually think our founding fathers could have possbily anticpated absolutely every issue the country would eventually be faced with? The Constitution doesn't attempt to mandate to much. Basically, that's the beauty of it (brevity). However, the original fathers of our country were intelligent enough to know that adjustments to the document would have to be made in future years. Therefore, rules were set in place for the inclusion of Constitutional Amendments.

Please point me to the Amendment where drugs were outlawed? Can't find it? At least when our government outlawed alcohol they had enough respect for the constitution to do it the proper way, via the Amendment process. Now they just ram every single thing through the interstate commerce clause loophole.

Using drugs is stupid, but the war on drugs is unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

Originally Posted by specsaregood

Our Federal Reserve system and "fiat money" are responsible for our job loss, not free trade.

Sorry your're FLAT wrong.

Please correct me with an explanation of why you think I am FLAT wrong.

Do you understand the difference between having hard currency (backed by assets) and our fiat money? And how if your currency is backed by assets it puts a limit on how much you can spend before you have to make money?

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

He compares eating too many twinkies with illegal drugs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

If he doesn’t care about illegal drugs coming across the border surly won’t not care about illegal people or building the fence. I guess you can call this having more liberties which means no government and let free will shine. Like he said go back to the early 1900’s when the rich had the liberties to rule as they please

No his point is how the government enforces rules. That moron was suggesting martial law in cities to enforce drug law. If the gov't agreed to that type of enforcement, what would stop the government from forcing people on diets. Look at China, if you dont get permission ahead of time to have a baby they abduct the wife and give her a forced abortion, its happened - do you want the U.S. to be like that just so we enforce the border? Then we have a secure border, but our lives are horrible. We've given up liberty to gain security and then we lose both. Its not about no government, its about a government that respects privacy, and liberty.

Originally Posted by specsaregood

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

Originally Posted by specsaregood

Our Federal Reserve system and "fiat money" are responsible for our job loss, not free trade.

Sorry your're FLAT wrong.

Please correct me with an explanation of why you think I am FLAT wrong.

Do you understand the difference between having hard currency (backed by assets) and our fiat money? And how if your currency is backed by assets it puts a limit on how much you can spend before you have to make money?

yes I would like to hear the answer to that also "once_A_Demacrat"

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Originally Posted by specsaregood

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

Originally Posted by specsaregood

Our Federal Reserve system and "fiat money" are responsible for our job loss, not free trade.

Sorry your're FLAT wrong.

Please correct me with an explanation of why you think I am FLAT wrong.

Do you understand the difference between having hard currency (backed by assets) and our fiat money? And how if your currency is backed by assets it puts a limit on how much you can spend before you have to make money?

yes I would like to hear the answer to that also "once_A_Demacrat"

Watch Lou are just google "free trade and job loss"

I don't now anything about 'fiat money' - one thing I do know, we don't have 'free trade'.

We have one sided trades deals with countries that harm our workers and we subsidized some industries to harm people in other countries.

But for those who think Ron Paul has the wrong idea - what do we do - business as usual? How's that working for us?

Originally Posted by butterbean

Another small strike against Paul is his voting in favor of doubling high tech worker H1-B visas in 1998. In that same year he also voted against a bill that would have required that businesses ensure that they've actively tried to hire an American worker before applying to have a foreign worker come here on a visa like the H1-B.

The H1-B visa issue is a huge deal, but I think that it can be worked out. I think Ron Paul, unlike some other candidates, is more apt to LISTEN to "the people". The rest of his stand on illegal immigration seems good.

Because he is such a contitutionalist, he will do the peoples will.