Thread: I Was Wrong About Ron Paul On Immigration

Originally Posted by nntrixie

It's all show and tell - and I fear the fence is also. That doesn't mean they won't spend a lot of money and take a lot of American's land - it just means they don't intend it to work - not this administration, anyway.

Definitely all good points. When we have such deceitful people in office, anything could happen.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I see the liberatarians might have that idea - but I'm not pushing truly I'm not - as I am very interested in this. Has he said he wants open borders?

Yes.

Tim Russert brought up the quote in his recent interview with RP. Back in 1987, Ron paul said, "We should have no immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work."

For some, the age of the quote is what is surprising. For me, it is the quote itself that is utterly astonishing. Furthermore, it is false to assume that RP quickly changed his mind, had an epiphany, and pulled a 180 on immigration shortly after the quote. When exactly did he pull the 180? From OBL to savior???? I remember 1980s California, and we were certainly experiencing the invasion back then. Also, this quote surfaced AFTER I had already decided that Paul was inadequate on border security and interior enforcement. It just underscored my opinion already based on his voting record, quotations, official position.....it really didn't surprise me at all that he has said this.

I don't want to take chances with someone who made such asinine, ludicrous statements, when the country, at very least California, was certainly enduring the invasion.

I will check that out - if so, it is troublesome to say the least -

Bren Yes, I know AZ passed some resolutions, but did they ever go into effect?

If a law is not enforced, it won't work - we see that with our current laws.

We have laws against illegals being here, working here, driving here, etc. but they aren't being enforced.

Enforcement is the key.

A fence without enforcement won't work, in my opinion.

Even if we stopped the flow 100% - we still have 30M here multiplying, infiltrating our government, voting, breaking taxpayers, etc. That's enough to do the damage necessary.

I do believe if they didn't have work - and there are laws on the books that can be enforced to see that happens - they would leave.

While I would like to see employers frog marched into the courthouse, I want the illegals gone more. If we could have both, that would be wonderful, but I'd be happy with them gone.

I do believe if we cut off the freebies, and the work, they will leave.

First off, they come for money - most of them. Without the work, they have no money. Without the freebies, they don't have enough money to live - most of them.

tiny wrote:

I'm not against a fence being built, but if you listen to Paul's stance on illegal immigration, it cuts down the need for fences.

The fence is not only about illegal immigration, it's also about smugglers and potential terrorist too.

IMO, nothing we could do in the interior cuts down on the need for a quality fence. Times are changing and so is the world. We need to better protect our borders from would be intruders through increased border security. Any worthwhile border security plan should include quality barriers.

nntrixie wrote:

A fence without enforcement won't work, in my opinion.

Boom!! There it is again. Please, for the sake of my sanity, tell me who has suggested that there will be no enforcement to go along with the border fence? We should constantly be pushing for both, interior inforcement and a quality fence. Just for arguments sake, why can't the fence be built first or why can't both happen simultaneously? Forgive, but I don't understand where you're coming from unless you're just offering cover for Ron Paul's position on no fence.

No one has implied or suggested that there shouldn't be both, enforcement and a border fence.

This thread sure seems to be making a lot of circles.

Check out this video.

In it Ron Paul says something like,"I have my shortcomings but the policies I supports don't".

He supports the United States Constitution, the rule of law, and the principles set forth by the Founding Fathers.

http://www.justin.tv/ronpaultv

Oops! My link just goes to a random Ron Paul video it appears. This is a link to the same interview but has more Leno. The other one cut to an audience of Ron Paul and a group of friends watching a tape of this video in the link.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...53651359708857

Boom!! There it is again. Please, for the sake of my sanity, tell me who has suggested that there will be no enforcement to go along with the border fence? We should constantly be pushing for both, interior inforcement and a quality fence. Just for arguments sake, why can't the fence be built first or why can't both happen simultaneously? Forgive, but I don't understand where you're coming from unless you're just offering cover for Ron Paul's position on no fence.



My opinion on the fence has absolutely nothing to do with Ron Paul and everything to do with my take on reality - or the way things are.

Think about it - we have had laws for years that have worked, way back when they were used. They have not been used in 30 years.

There has been a clamor for 30 years to enforce them. It was ignored until people like Tancredo began speaking up and taking the heat - then the flood reached other parts of the country and could be ignored no longer.

So the clamor has been loud and clear for a number of years. What has happened - nothing - less than nothing. We barely defeated an amnesty bill - despite Americans overwhelming wanting something done.


We've had the laws - more than one - and the funds to enforce interior laws - for years - and they aren't being used.

You ask why I think we won't have interior enforcement - I answer - past history.

I ask you - why makes you think we will -