Thread: Ron Paul: I’m Not Going to Kowtow to the Latino Vote

Don't fence me in - YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-FqTxjXBts

Rons new campagn song since he dont want border fence.He is so afraid AMERICANS cant get into mexico.

[quote]“If everyone who comes illegally is automatically given citizenship, a vote, and can apply for welfare, that would not be good format because we would have more of it,â€

[quote="uniteasone"][quote]“If everyone who comes illegally is automatically given citizenship, a vote, and can apply for welfare, that would not be good format because we would have more of it,â€

Thank You uniteasone for your honest approach and insight. Thank You Airborn for noticing how some would like to use the worn out tactics of the propagandists by attributing quotations were none existed!

Radical? Perhaps we should stick to the same old worn out tactics that have brought us to this point in time?

I'll ask a simple question, and will accept all answers worth the time to print, credit where credit is due. WHO, has advocated limiting the scope of the federal government by bringing up the simple idea of adhering to, OR, at least taking out that worn out 'g-damn piece of paper' and giving it some light?

Bring it on!

Perhaps some only like parts of the Constitution. Fine. Say so. Be honest.

Many here know RP was, and has been, intentionally ignored by the LSM. The same LSM that has helped to exacerbate this debacle, this tragedy, this monstrosity known as ILLEGAL immigration.

Just think................a closer look at 'birthright(?) citizenship(?), ending the magnet of entitlements to those that are ILLEGAL, support for those states that have had the gumption, forced or true fortitude on their own part to do something other than wait for the not so "radical" continuation of yesterday's gangs do-nothing approach. STAYING within the confines of the Constitution. Is all of that so radical.

Ending the dept. of non-education? Curtailing Leviathan? And so many other radical ideas ideas not found in the Constitution. The way I see it, you can either embrace it, change it, or continue playing the game.

Where is this other politician that not only just found the Constitution, but has been shouting from the roof tops about a manner in which until just recently was all but forgotten?

How about some credit where some credit is due?

RON PAUL HAS, ON NATIONAL MEDIAS BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF "BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP" AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!

WHERE IS THIS OTHER GIANT WITH BARK? Most are afraid to even mention this issue above that of a whisper! The debates taking place are due to people like Ron Paul. All others are neo-cons willing to ride the storm back to the shores of "normalcy,' you know, the safe harbor of the status quo.

Ron Paul is not perfect. He does not carry a six-shooter on his hip, or talk with a Texan's twangy accent. I am sure there are some that would, IF that would score them enough points to gain your vote so we can all go back to the comforts of Big Gubmint. Too bad.

Ron Paul DOES, and HAS brought up the tough issues, the issues that all others would have loved to have left under the rug. Now that WAS radical!

Quoting Ron Paul. It is obvious that Ron Paul is not on our side. He is on the side of the illegals. There is no way he would have a hand in sending them home! That is why he gets a F on numbersUSA!

Ron Paul is against SB 1070. He claims:

"Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of 'suspicion' is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a 'threat,' without charges ever being made."

Paul writes:

"Many claim that illegal immigrants take American jobs. This is true, but most of the jobs they 'take' are the ones unemployed Americans refuse at the wage offered."

Ron Paul said that illegals:

"have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything."

Paul writes:

"It's hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than toward a European illegal immigrant."

Paul writes:

"One side says use the US Army, round them up ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty... The first choice—sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home—isn't going to happen and shouldn't happen…if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who have never lived for any length of time in Mexico. This would hardly be a Good Samaritan approach to the problem. It would be incompatible with human rights."

So if the US isn't going to deport, or have interior enforcement, or have employer sanctions, or any amnesty, what is Ron Paul's plan? This is what he writes:

"Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problemshould not be given citizenship. Maybe a 'green card' with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be condemned by the welfare left as too harsh and condemned by the confused right as being too generous. It will be said that it will create a class of second-class citizens. Yet itcould be argued that it may well allow some illegal immigrants who come here illegal a benefit status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits—as much better option than deportation."

Paul writes:

"Don't punish third parties for not being keen to act as law enforcement agents in regard to illegal immigration. Blaming American employers and fining them for hiring an individual, directly orindirectly, with counterfeit identification strikes me as a compulsory servitude not permitted under the constitution. Determining who is legal or not is police and court function, not a responsibility of private business."

By the way, George Bush did not say anything about the constitution being just a piece of paper. That is propaganda.

Ok, enough already!! This whole conversation about "should we" or shouldn't we" is exactly the ridiculous cop out conversation that the idiots in our government are pushing! I didn't ask for cheaper lettuce, I didn't ask for someone to come and cut my lawn, I didn't ask for cheap labor to build my house! I don't give a rats a$$ if I have to pay 5 cents more for my fruit or vegetables or anything else! I wasn't given a choice! Reagan made the HORRIBLE mistake of giving amnesty back in 1984 and causing this flood of @@#@# that we are seeing decades later!!! DON'T PLAY THIS GAME! This was thrust upon us by the greedy businesses that made millions of dollars with illegal labor! And now, after this S#!% has gone on unabated for decades and not a single leader in our government has done a damn thing about it, we are now thrust into this ridiculous conversation of "gee, we can't deport these people, they've been here for decades. How could we possibly be so cruel as to actually enforce our laws now??!" LET ME REPEAT, I DIDN'T INVITE THESE INVADERS HERE IN ANY WAY, FORM OR FASHION! They broke into MY country, stole MY jobs, drove down MY wages, robbed from MY national treasury, raped and murdered, stole identities and ruined lives of LEGAL American citizens and you TELL me that WE CAN"T enforce the law because these millions of invaders have gotten away with it for years because YOU, MY ELECTED OFFICIALS, wouldn't do a damn thing about it???!!!!! I'm sick of being lumped in with the "WE" that you keep referring to!! I don't care if Ron Paul or Barney the Purple Dinosaur talks like he is a supporter of constitutional law! Show me ONE man or ONE woman with a SPINE in Washington that has put their money where there mouth is and I might listen! Until you show me ONE person who has the guts to do what needs to be done and doesn't do a tap dance around the issues for fear of offending this group or that group, I don't give a s#!+ what they have to say!! These scumbags need to be held accountable for enforcing our laws or face jail time!!! I believe that it's THAT serious!

Ok, I've said enough.

GoodOleDays wrote,

"He is on the side of the illegals."

Really. Pulling out the broad brush, don't you think?

He is against and would like to have an honest debate concerning "birthright citizenship." He has championed this issue. Is there something wrong with this stance? Hardly seems to be on the side of the illegals, OR their supporters who recognize the great importance this issue has towards their end goals?

Would just that issue resolved greatly benefit this country? Send a message to ALL illegals no matter where they are from, that they cannot come here and drop "anchor?" And all of the chain migration that comes from this deceitful act, which is unconstitutional.

He also wishes to sever the welfare incentives. A magnet many here have argued, rightfully so. This would do what to deter illegal immigration. The effects would be tremendous in my opinion, and Ron Paul understands this as well. Cutting the benefits from illegals makes the cost of their cheap labor rise, thus making the incentive to hire tax payer subsidized labor that much more prohibitive. It would not require any laws that would effect the citizens of this country to infringe upon our constitutional rights, freedoms or liberties. Something that so many are willing to give up IF the politicians will just solve our problems!

Then there is the issue of honesty. Being honest with oneself helps. Understanding honesty not just at the personal level BUT, the honesty of society in general. The honesty, and intent of others.

Many here are patriots and fighters for this cause, no doubt. Yet we are not on this planet by ourselves. There are people who would rather sit on their duffs than do an honest days work,.........so long as the politicians continue to feed them! Ron Paul says as much. Some people chose not to listen or believe, taking it personal with little honesty to realize there are people who will take a check from Uncle Sam for sitting on their arse and never bat an eye! Does that affend You? It should'nt. As he was not talking about You.

Today is here and gone. Time is of the essence. Time marches on! In other words, the laws that are made today will be with us for a while and set into motion the restrictions upon all of us, ACCORDING to what we accept NOW! Infrigements upon OUR rights do not just pop up, they incrementally sneak up on US (citizens) and end up with negative consequence that are harder to right after the fact. Big government, government in general does not like to relinquish power once it has it. After all, government is force. Ron Paul is very careful about what is put into place, knowing full well that it is not what is here today, but what it morphs into tomorrow. Cause and effect. Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.

The brilliance of the Constitution is that it tries to limit the grasp of Leviathan. Ron Paul knows this, and it scares the heck out of some.

Work ethics of some Americans? Do we really need go there? Honesty will not hurt. It is cleansing in nature. Just because the road to Hell has been paved by good intentions does not mean we need to continue to finance its construction.

Suck the fat from the top,
til lightning cease to flow.
Sell the wares of galleys past,
Where men will beg to row.

I think all of us here would agree that we don't trust the main stream media.
It is obvious that they choose the candidates for us who THEY feel will continue the status quo. Whether it be a Dem or Republcan.

They can build up momentum for a candidate - like Herman Cain after the FL straw poll win, or they can totally ignore some one like Ron Paul who has won 8 straw polls so far this year. NO MENTION AT ALL!

With that in mind, doesn't it make sense that the candidate they ignore the most is the one that the FEAR they most? Wouldn't that be the one candidate who they label as extreme and radical in order to marginalize him in the minds of the public?

At least with Ron Paul you have 20+ years of voting consistently and constitutionally. You can't say that about ANY OTHER CANDIDATE. He predicted the dire circumstances of our current economy while all the other candidate said things were fine back in 2007. Shouldn't we elect someone who has expertise and experience in economic policy and constitutional principles rather than those candidates who happen to sound better or look good on tv???

Logic tells us to do the OPPOSITE of what the media is influencing us to do. CHOOSE THE CANDIDATE THEY IGNORE. It's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Ok, enough already!! This whole conversation about "should we" or shouldn't we" is exactly the ridiculous cop out conversation that the idiots in our government are pushing! I didn't ask for cheaper lettuce, I didn't ask for someone to come and cut my lawn, I didn't ask for cheap labor to build my house! I don't give a rats a$$ if I have to pay 5 cents more for my fruit or vegetables or anything else! I wasn't given a choice! Reagan made the HORRIBLE mistake of giving amnesty back in 1984 and causing this flood of @@#@# that we are seeing decades later!!! DON'T PLAY THIS GAME! This was thrust upon us by the greedy businesses that made millions of dollars with illegal labor! And now, after this S#!% has gone on unabated for decades and not a single leader in our government has done a damn thing about it, we are now thrust into this ridiculous conversation of "gee, we can't deport these people, they've been here for decades. How could we possibly be so cruel as to actually enforce our laws now??!" LET ME REPEAT, I DIDN'T INVITE THESE INVADERS HERE IN ANY WAY, FORM OR FASHION! They broke into MY country, stole MY jobs, drove down MY wages, robbed from MY national treasury, raped and murdered, stole identities and ruined lives of LEGAL American citizens and you TELL me that WE CAN"T enforce the law because these millions of invaders have gotten away with it for years because YOU, MY ELECTED OFFICIALS, wouldn't do a damn thing about it???!!!!! I'm sick of being lumped in with the "WE" that you keep referring to!! I don't care if Ron Paul or Barney the Purple Dinosaur talks like he is a supporter of constitutional law! Show me ONE man or ONE woman with a SPINE in Washington that has put their money where there mouth is and I might listen! Until you show me ONE person who has the guts to do what needs to be done and doesn't do a tap dance around the issues for fear of offending this group or that group, I don't give a s#!+ what they have to say!! These scumbags need to be held accountable for enforcing our laws or face jail time!!! I believe that it's THAT serious!

Ok, I've said enough.

I see you did not sugar coat it for us. That is good and I think it tells what most Americans are feeling with this issue.

I have voted for Ron before since I feel he is one man that actually tells it the way it really is.

If he were to be voted in, there would probably be some feeling of finaticism's till we got back on track again,since the changes would be so great. That is just my opinion. But I wonder if the people could actually handle the change?

uniteasone wrote,

"But I wonder if people can handle the change?"

Perhaps another way of asking this question would be, how will people handle the change?

Human nature does not like change. Only when circumstances are bad will people try and "change."

The forces that are at work know this. Change is coming, of that I have little doubt. We are living it right now, each and every day.

When Reagan granted amnesty in 1986, not only was there change right then and there, but a "change" that has been esculating ever since. That change affected the next generations. We all know this now, some knew it at the time.

We are not leading into this change that is coming, we are being led. How can we get out in front?

We should understand also that "change" is slow and incremental. Others know this.

The only way that is safe for us as Americans to handle "change" that is inevitable is to adhere to the Constitution and allow it to shape the "change." Otherwise to ignore the Constitution is to allow others to set up the parameters for the "change' that is inevitable.

Smoke and mirrors are such alternatives to adherence to the Constitution. They may make for interesting debate, stir the emotions, fire the intellectual thoughts, but, they are there to take the focus from the rule book that would protect us as we debate the changes that are coming. This is an area that is easy to fix, or easy to manipulate. Either follow the rule book, or follow the smoke. This is the message that I get from Ron Paul. It is not the messenger, it is the message.

Even if people do not like the messenger, at least we should be grateful that he has, and has been the voice in the wilderness that has brought into debate so many areas that others would have liked to have avoided.

When it comes to the debates, this "change' that is inevitable is a change at the federal level, and this affects how the states will act or not act.

If "change is inevitable, and it is, I will take the change that is shaped and molded by the restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution.

Just my simple rant.