0 votes

Ron Paul: Don't Complicate Immigration Reform

December 12, 2005

Congress is poised to consider an immigration reform bill this week, but as usual the devil will be in the details. A sensible bill would

  • bolster enforcement of existing immigration laws,
  • reject any form of amnesty,
  • and address the underlying welfare state that adds to the problem.

I fear, however, that Congress will bow to the president and accept some sort of amnesty. Even worse, I fear Congress may use the immigration bill to create a national employment database that has nothing to do with border control and everything to do with monitoring American citizens and employers.

Most Americans understandably want Congress to do something about illegal immigration, which has become a national embarrassment. One important solution is better enforcement of the laws we’ve got -- which plainly call for illegal immigrants to be arrested and deported. Congress can pass any law it wants, but unless federal agencies enforce those laws they are meaningless.

The ultimate responsibility for our immigration mess, therefore, lies squarely with successive presidents, not Congress. For decades our chief executives simply have lacked the political will, the manpower, or the desire to police our borders and deport lawbreakers. It’s been nearly impossible politically for presidents or candidates to suggest the obvious, namely that illegal immigration mocks the rule of law and creates huge social and economic problems. But the tide is turning, and a majority of Americans will demand real action on immigration by the next administration.

Real immigration reform will be difficult, but it need not be complicated.

First, enforce existing laws by controlling the borders once and for all. We must recognize that true national defense means defending our own borders and coastlines. This is the primary constitutional responsibility of the federal government. This means it’s time to stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars on overseas military adventures and countless alphabet soup domestic agencies. Borders should be the number one national priority, plain and simple. Does the federal government have something better to do?

Second, we must end birthright citizenship by constitutional amendment, if necessary. House Joint Resolution 46, which I introduced earlier this year, begins the process in Congress. As long as illegal immigrants know that their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.

Finally, we must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants-- certainly not all-- receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.

Immigration admittedly is a difficult issue, and nobody wants America to become an unwelcoming fortress. On the contrary, we need to attract the best and brightest people by remaining an entrepreneurial society that rewards initiative and hard work. But we must gain control of our borders not only to strengthen our national security, but also to preserve our national identity.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst121205.htm



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A simpler way to get rid of illegals

Give tax credits to any employer and landlord that fires them and evicts them. No where to work and no where to live. See ya, bye bye. Come back when your legal.

or get rid of labor laws and

or get rid of labor laws and welfare benefits.

the only ones that'll stay are the decent hardworking ones.

I am out of touch with most Americans precisely because I am not out of touch with reality.

Of course I agree with RP (in spirit) and Constitutionally

However -- I think the state would only grow in size if it actually tried to arrest and keep out 18M people or 4M (whatever the true number of "illegals" is).

Some estimate (if we had 10.8M illegals) it would cost around $25,000 per person to process, capture, detain, feed, treat medically, clothe (if necessary), and deport. Less you want packed cattle trains and golden stars on the lapels.

The "American Resistence" says we have 10,000 "illegals" entering daily.

They say 1/3 will be caught -- so that's 3,000.

If there is a task force dedicated to catching illegals how would we compute the cost.

Assuming it only takes one officer to catch one illegal (sometimes they catch 'em in batches) and he averages 8 per day; then that'd be around $100 -- just in his wages.

We feed them, sometimes clothe them, and sometimes hold them for three days or more before deportation -- We only deport around 300 daily (from some estimates).

By that estimate it would take 10 days to process the 3,000 who are caught; while 7,000 are out there working and spending.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/deportation_c...

This site (and I have no checked the numbers) that it would cost $285B per year to deport all of them.

That does not sound "small state" to me.

Who says we have to deport

Who says we have to deport every single illegal alien? It's not necessary and too expensive, inefficient and time consuming to go after every single one. Secure the borders(definitely deport those who try to sneak across the border), enforce visa rules, and take away the magnets that draw them here, welfare, birthright citizenship, no amnesty, and stop employers from knowingly hiring illegal aliens who are working at jobs illegally, then most illegal aliens will probably leave on their own. That's the easiest and least expensive solution, that would get the most support among the voting public, that I can see.

Deportation has been ongoing in numbers larger than most might think. Some people don't seem to believe that large numbers of deportations have already been happening, and it didn't cause the sky to fall or a civil war or anything catastrophic. In 2007, over 500,000 Mexicans alone were deported(not counting other nationalities). Link below
http://www.focal.ca/publications/focalpoint/fp1108/?lang=e&a...

I'd say, let the deportations continue. And why not double them? That wouldn't be too hard.

This link has some further info on numbers and costs

http://immigrationcounters.com/

As far as 10,000 illegal aliens entering daily, I've seen numbers that are less than half that, link below

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/5/4/133806...

In years past(when Bush, McCain and Ted Kennedy were pushing their amnesty plan), I certainly have heard that numbers were as high as 10,000 crossing daily, but I don't think that's been sustained long term. Ron Paul talked about the fact that when promises of amnesty are made, illegal immigration increases.

photoshopwiz's picture

Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and SA

~
all on the same page ...

Arizona Has It Right
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1490

SA@TAC - Praising Arizona
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaJOIJ6qmtI
__

Feds abdicating responsiblity ... and reconquista ...

What Bush fails to see at the border
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/05/20060405-091...

"It may already be too late to avoid a future annexation of the Southwest by Mexico or the evolution of a Mexican-dominated satellite state. This is not to say Mexican people are better or worse than any of God's children. It is to say that millions of ethnically and culturally homogeneous people will seek self-determination in a land they will increasingly feel justified in claiming as their own. Especially when the natural weight of demographic change is accompanied by the soundtrack of radical demagoguery which seeks to legitimize and moralize this phenomenon as a "reconquista." Many pundits claim you will be remembered in history as the president who won (or lost) the war in Iraq.


I see it differently. I believe you will come to be seen,
in the years and decades to come, as the President who saved (or lost)
the Southwest of the United States."


Thanks for that reference

I read the whole article, and it was really interesting. I can understand how people "of a feather tend to flock together." However, the article also acknowledges that:

"Unease with differences helps explain why teams of engineers from different cultures may be ideally suited to solve a vexing problem. Culture clashes can produce a dynamic give-and-take, generating a solution that may have eluded a group of people with more similar backgrounds and approaches."

Another paragraph from your source:

"In his paper, Putnam cites the work done by Page and others, and uses it to help frame his conclusion that increasing diversity in America is not only inevitable, but ultimately valuable and enriching. As for smoothing over the divisions that hinder civic engagement, Putnam argues that Americans can help that process along through targeted efforts. He suggests expanding support for English-language instruction and investing in community centers and other places that allow for "meaningful interaction across ethnic lines."
"

The evidence gathered in the research

is what matters, not how Putnam or anyone else characterizes it.
I suspect most Harvard professors would have buried the research,so I give Putnam respect for his courage. Still to maintain viability in the Harvard community his if, ands, or buts are helpful.
Again it's the research that matters, not his apologies for it.
The research is fact, the commentary is speculation.

What is it to be a US citizen really?

I often see a sea of people in this country who don't truly embody the US spirit
(or at least the spirit that I would hope a free person would exhibit). Should we deport them too? People generalize often about what it means to be a US citizen and how "we" would be happy if others came here, willing to work, and the legal path. To that I say, even if you were born here, it doesn't make you anymore deserving or knowledgeable about what it is to be a good citizen and guardian of this free society. The immigration process is a joke, often the people that were born here have been proven the biggest frauds, criminals, and traitors that we will never deal with. Just consider that when you think about using generalizations about people crossing those borders sometimes risking their very lives. To stop the constant stream of immigration into this country is about as futile as the drug war because the same collective of people are fighting it.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

not sure what some of you bootlickers are crowing about

this is a great article, written by a man with an eye for the pragmatic.

he even lists the order in which it should be approached.

and there's no mention of police state style round ups.

it sits squarely in the realm of pragmatism. these things would work. too bad we haven't done any of those things on his list.

not a one.

but we got a bunch of people who are Sean Hannity style bootlickers, fighting with the kumbaya singing peaceniks, over how great/bad it is to attempt to round up people and remove them.

i used to be able to see both your sides. now i'm disgusted, not by the goals, but by the shear stupidity and illogic of those who would want right now, a round up or open borders.

neither side will gain my support. i support Dr. Paul, and will continue to educate others, that wish to be educated. it's voluntary of course.

meanwhile, the number one thing that Ron Paul said in respect to the borders is that they should be controlled.

that

has long been paul's position. He does seem to be suggesting here that the executive has a responsibility to round up and deport people.

Fortune Favors the Bold

Restore the Militia

The fact that we don't have a Constitutional militia is also part of the problem. All able-bodied males aged 18-45 should receive military discipline and training and be able to be called up to defend our nation from insurrections and invasions. This partly the fault of the states as well as Congress and the President.

what's a constitutional militia?

how about people just arms themselves, and self organize.

all voluntary.

as for your comment in general, it seems like you completely ignored the article.

Ron Paul lost my support and

Ron Paul lost my support and I think he lost support of millions of Hispanics and big chunk of libertarians. He has zero chance to become president as his supporter base is shrinking... You can't fight Military Industrial Complex, Corporate "mafia" and FED by deporting millions of families and their born here children.

Since I am no longer supporter it is my last post on DP.

YO BRO

Securing our borders sounds legit. And I dont understand how you can disagree with someone on ONE thing, and automatically lose all your support for them? Good luck finding someone (especially politician) that agrees even 90% percent with you.

How could a Ron Paul 'supporter'

be so unaware of Paul's stance on this subject?

Wish you would stay and

offer what you think the solution is. The Daily Paul is an ideas place if you believe there is another better solution I would like to hear it.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

I will brake my promise and

I will brake my promise and answer your question.

Controlling/stopping illegal immigration by chasing/arresting/deporting immigrants will cost tax payers more money than the war on drugs... and not only in financial terms. It will create a huge social division and empower those government agencies that want ultimate control, it will benefit all of the corporations that outsource all the jobs to Latin America and Asia. It will bankrupt most farmers and small family operated businesses. It will make America dependent not only on foreign oil but food as well.

The solution is pretty simple. Allow those illegals to pay taxes (by granting them legal residency) and limit social benefits... there will never be free market in this country if American citizens are afraid to compete for jobs taken by mostly poorly educated illegal immigrants.
We should put our army to protect OUR borders, and not those in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I don't think you want to preserve all of those janitorial, lawn mowing, berry picking jobs for your children... would you like your daughter to wipe the asses of elderly american citizens in nursing homes? How much are you willing to pay for house cleaning ladies or nannies?

You can't get a job as a designer, engineer, broker, police officer, teacher, nurse, or doctor without proof of citizenship or a legal permit, so the only job market that you would preserve by deporting millions of people are those in small family operated restaurants, bars, small shops, preschools, and nursing homes. Do you really want that nursing home job to be preserved for your daughter? Do you want to protect the berry picking job for your son? Do you want to kill off those small businesses?

If I will loose my relatively good job this job will not be taken by illegal immigrants, it will be taken by somebody living in India.
Deporting over 12 million illegal immigrants without "nazi methods" is an impossible task so why waste our taxes? Think about it... there's billions of dollars spent on Afghanistan and Iraq's "civil" wars and Ron Paul wants to spark our own "civil" war... Latinos against WASP... and the winner is?

The greatness of America was built by illegal immigrants as only Native Americans are here "legally".

And one more thing... please folks stop crying too much about cost of education for the children of illegal immigrants... This is a necessary investment unless you don't care about the future of this country.

Thanks to quiltingsando , reedr3v and all those that appreciated my posts in the past.
Good Luck in ending the FED.

gees you sound just like

gees you sound just like george bush, bill clinton, barry soeto, and a few others who want to take this country down. the cost of NOT deporting 24 million illegals is nothing compared to our heritage and our country.

“Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.” - Dr. Ron Paul

they are not immigrants, they

they are not immigrants, they are illegal aliens.. are you that brainwashed?

“Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.” - Dr. Ron Paul

Two of my Daughters work in a Nursing home,You got it wrong!

They have to show their birth certificate every year to renew their Certified nurses assistant Licences and had to have a High school diploma to get the job,along with state certification training and testing.
So you know, I own a business and would go pick oranges right now for extra money.There are many "Citizens" who would do this right now.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

I'm curious, was this somehow

I'm curious, was this somehow a surprise to you? You didn't know Ron Paul has had a strong anti-illegal immigration and anti-amnesty for illegal aliens stance? I'm surprised how some people come out and complain about Ron Paul's opposition to illegal immigration, like it's something new and unheard of. This article linked at the top doesn't even list all his positions he has stated, he goes even further than this article lets on, in other interviews and speeches he has given in 2006-2008. Here are some examples of other things Ron Paul has written about, and talked about on the subject of illegal immigration

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PQdDjvDsVM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul343.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-Zsm9gVIPo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8Ls03FuZBA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUkbRu5FViI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhzoDyauv1I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpSoWYM3YKA

One of the many reasons I chose to become a Ron Paul supporter back in 2006 was because I had studied the illegal immigration problem, and understood how serious the situation had become and was tired of the federal government not adequately enforcing laws against illegal immigration, and I felt that Ron Paul, if he could get elected, would be the first president in decades to finally get some adequate enforcement of laws against illegal immigration going, and make other positive changes, and reject amnesty the whole time he was in office. I have studied the serious negative consequences of out of control illegal immigration, and I proudly stand with Ron Paul and think he is right on this issue. The National Council of La Raza would definitely not be able to push Ron Paul around and threaten him into supporting amnesty and non-enforcement of laws related to illegal immigration, like they did to Obama and George Bush.
You say he lost support with libertarians, well that happened years ago when Ron Paul changed from being for open borders and amnesty to being for secured borders and no amnesty. Many libertarians said that since Ron Paul did an about face on the illegal immigration issue(for good reasons imo), that he was no longer a real/true libertarian. If that's the case, so be it. I think Ron Paul still has some level of libertarian support, and I think he is right, and I'm glad he didn't let himself be bullied by the libertarian party.
As for losing too much support with hispanics, some say that already happened starting back in the mid 90's with proposition 187, a republican backed effort to remove welfare benefits from illegal aliens, which made hispanics turn away from republicans in large numbers and caused a majority to vote democrat, as shown in recent presidential elections.
California had(and still has) the largest number of illegal aliens in any state. Many hispanics in California got very upset at the idea of removing welfare from illegal aliens, since most illegal aliens, about 80%, are hispanic, and they marched in the streets in huge numbers to protest against it. Proposition 187 was passed by a majority of California voters, and it failed it's first court challenge, it could have been appealed and possibly upheld, but Gray Davis allowed himself to be bullied by hispanic leaders(such as the present day mayor of Los Angeles) and then Mexican president Zedillo and prop 187 was never appealed and more or less died then and there.

I realize, the goal of libertarians is to end all welfare(not just to illegal aliens), but ending all welfare would be impossible to pass right now, because we still have so many liberal democrats in the house and senate who would block any legislation ending welfare. To end welfare, you not only need to elect a president who wants to end it, which would be hard enough, you have to have a majority in the house and senate who are for getting rid of welfare.
But, if a first step of removing welfare from illegal aliens, which most citizens of this country support, creates so much anger and outrage among so many hispanics, then anyone who advocates ending welfare is going to have a tough time getting hispanic votes. For an example of that hispanic anger, Art Torres, hispanic state senator(and a month after he said this, he was made chairman of the democrat party in California)said Prop. 187 was "the last gasp of white America in California."
Mario Obledo, hispanic co-founder of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund aka MALDEF and the La Raza lawyers bar asssociation, and former California secretary of health and welfare said in an interview
"We're going to take over all the political institutions in California. In 5 years, hispanics will be the majority in this state. When asked by a caller on a radio program if he had said that California is going to become a hispanic state and anyone that doesn't like it should leave, Obledo said "I did. They ought to go back to Europe."
The above quotes are just a sample of the serious strife that was going on in California during the attempt to remove welfare incentives from illegal aliens.

Other states, including Arizona, have passed laws to try to end welfare to illegal aliens, but I don't know if any study has been done to show how well the law has been enforced. Janet Napolitano tried to stop the law to remove welfare from illegals in Arizona, and when it passed, she tried to prevent it from being properly enforced. She was very opposed to anti-illegal immigration related laws being passed, in general.
Even with removing welfare from illegal aliens, the U.S. born children of illegal aliens still get welfare and this helps illegal aliens remain in the country and discourages them from leaving. If Ron Paul's plan of ending automatic citizenship for children of illegal aliens were put into place, then those children would no longer qualify for welfare and millions or even billions of dollars nationwide could be saved.
And if stopping the children of illegal aliens from getting automatic citizenship for their children born here sounds so radical and unbelievable, consider the words of Senator Jacob Howard, one of the authors of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. They key is the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Howard said that that phrase would not apply to aliens or foreigners, because they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries. So the original intent and meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment seems to have been misinterpreted in recent history, and Ron Paul's plan of fixing this misinterpretation seems to be in line with the original intent and meaning of the law. Link below for more info
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2005/12/Birthright-...

birthright citizenship

The views of any of the framers or any of those who voted for it are irrelevant and would not be received or considered. Such things can be taken into account only if the language is held to be ambiguous, which this clearly is not. "All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States' could hardly be clearer. It is obvious that any person in this country(except foreign diplomats who have diplomatic immunity) is"subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This portion of the Constitution was not concerned with immigrants at all, but was intended to change the effect of the Dred Scott decision which held that Negroes were not citizens and could not become citizens.

No one should ever forget how shabally Beck treated Dr. Paul during the Presidential campaign or the conscienceless shillin he did for his fellow Mormon, Romney. As for Murdock, he was relentless in having Hannity O'Reilly constantly savage Dr. Paul so th

The view of one of the

The view of one of the authors of the amendment is irrelevant? I'm sorry, but I don't follow you.
If I write up a new bill, and it gets passed into law, and then that law has it's meaning and intent, that I intended, twisted and misinterpreted years after I've passed away, obviously I can't speak out against that. So, it would be up to others to go back and determine what the original intent and meaning of my law was, by going back and seeing what I'd written or spoken about it, instead of just guessing. If the courts choose to totally ignore my words about what I said the meaning and intent of my law was, and make up their own interpretation of my law, that is despicable judicial activism, and that would be very wrong.
The key is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Meaning not subject to another foreign power. Foreigners(including illegal aliens) who are present in this country are still subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries, until they immigrate here legally. I don't believe I'm wrong in saying that was Jacob Howard's intent, based on what he said in the past, for the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment.

construction of "born in the United States".

I know it seems peculisar but that is the rule--evidence of Howard's or anyone else's intent is not relevant and will not be considered unless the language in question has been held to be "ambiguous".This rule is ancient and definitely not a product of modern "judicial activism". In 144 years this language has never been held of thought to be ambiguous. Unfortunately with such an argument we would be laughed out of court. Evidence extraneous to the language simply will not be received if the language appears "regular on its face" I understand your frustration, as any effort to amend the Constitution would be difficult and perhaps impossible. Resort to unprincipled efforts to give a meaning to the Constitution which does not appear on its face can only bring discredit on the freedom movement. I do not see anything that can be done about immigration with that in the Constitution and removing it by amendment would appear out of reach. I am open to suggestion, but this one will not work. The clear language cannot be construed away by the use of evidence extraneous to the document. I am a long ago employee of a legislative drafting service, but would be certain this rule has not changed.

No one should ever forget how shabally Beck treated Dr. Paul during the Presidential campaign or the conscienceless shillin he did for his fellow Mormon, Romney. As for Murdock, he was relentless in having Hannity O'Reilly constantly savage Dr. Paul so th

reedr3v's picture

I for one will be sorry if you

leave permanently. I looked over your past posts and see you are committed to liberty. You don't specify your exact disagreement with RP's immigration ideas. I'd guess many of us don't have 100% agreement on this sticky issue. Those inclined toward free economy anarchism may have the greatest problem with Constitutional arguments.
But so long as we agree on the basic non-aggression principle, specific issues can be worked out over time. but if you just throw in your marbles and stomp away, you no longer have a voice contributing challenging ideas.

so long,

no longer

cya .. liberal moron. so damn

cya .. liberal moron. so damn blind you can't see the forrest for the trees. You don't have a clue..

“Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.” - Dr. Ron Paul

Wow, since when is daily paul

Wow, since when is daily paul a place to put people down? Be nice! At least diplomatic! sheesh. Here at DP, we are vulnerable to the same threat as any other forum -- becoming an echo chamber of one idea rather than a place for dialogue and contrasting ideas.

because some of these people

because some of these people are here to do one thing and that is cause trouble. I get tired of a few posters here. as I said if this poster is this stupid and did not know RTon Pauls stance and came in here to make a fuss then she /it deserved everything they got.

“Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.” - Dr. Ron Paul