-27 votes

A problem with Ron Paul's immigration policy

I've been a Paul supporter since the beginning of this race; however I have one slight disagreement with him on immigration policy. As I see it; in a free society government would keep their dirty hands to themselves. That means no banning, restricting, subsidizing, or punishing immigration. Most of Ron Paul's immigration policy (should I say most off his entire philosophy) is based on this hands off idea. This is evident in his opposition to the welfare state subsidizing immigration, his desire to make immigration easier, and opposition to things like a national ID card or E-verify.

However it is not so evident in his opposition to amnesty, I can't see how crossing into a county should be classified as an act of force. In an ideal society, government wouldn't have such power over immigration; people would have the liberty to come and go as the wish without the government's hand in the way, so long as they didn't initiate force along the way.

One explanation that popped into my head was respect for the rule of law. While I believe natural law trumps any and all laws, maybe Ron Paul doesn't. However that would mean no amnesty for any other victimless crimes if he is president, such as tax-evasion, draft-evasion, prostitution, or selling drugs.

Other explanations would be appreciated. Thanks.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

How are tax evasion,

prostitution, or drug pushing "victimless" crimes?
There are numerous victims in these 3 activities.

Can you name the victim?

I sure can't.

Tax evasion. By keeping my hard earned money, I'm aggressing against no one, therefore no victim.

Prostitution. Consenting adults trading money for sex, still no aggression, therefore no victim.

Selling Drugs. Consenting adults trading money for drugs, then taking them. Still no aggression and victim.

Note: prostitution and drug pushing would be illegal if a minor is involved however.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

Wake up.

I agree with you on immigration policy (free and open borders) and its the only issue on which I disagree with Dr.Paul. But, this is like 43rd in importance on my list and therefore almost insignificant in the overall picture.

As a lifelong Libertarian, when I find a candidate that I agree with 95%, I support him regardless of party.

Illegal Immigration is Mexico's version of welfare

Send them over here because Mexico can't or won't employ them or give them welfare.

Mexico needs a Liberty revolution also. Problem is, the only ones with the balls to do anything about it come here.

I say give them NO welfare, No auto citizenship at birth on US soil. My son was born at a hospital in Brownsville, Texas. I knew the attending nurse who told me he was the only birth out of 14 babies born of an American citizen. And Paying the 10K hospital bill. It is common for pregnant women from Mexico to come to the US to give birth (for free because the hospital cannot refuse them as it is considered an emergency.) and claim US citizenship for them. Once they are born Immigration will NOT deport the mother of an American citizen. Then they immediately start applying for bennies. It's a lifestyle. Daddy then makes it across and WHOOPEE! we're home free! I would do the same thing as an impoverished pregnant women from Mexico.
Without our welfare system they will stay home and make the needed changes for Mexico. These are often the best and the brightest. Mexico needs them.

I follow Frosty Woolridge's

I follow Frosty Woolridge's position on how detrimental population increases due to our high rate of immigration is for our environment 100%, and how poverty consciousnesses and theft among impoverished immigrants is detrimental to businesses like grocery stores, making it impossible to operate in some cities, and is bad for our culture. I think Ron Paul doesn't think the rate of immigration is a huge problem for the environment, but I do think he is open minded enough and intellectually honest enough that if someone sat down with him at his office and gave him and his staff convincing argument against our rate of immigration he would agree. I just don't think anyone has tried to go to his office and communicate these facts to him. As it is I do not agree with Ron Paul's position on immigration, but I at least think he is open minded enough to listen to people unlike the other Congressmen who only open their doors for money.

Champion of the Constitution

The Constitution is the highest law of the land

"As I see it; in a free society government would keep their dirty hands to themselves."

No, that means the Govt does only what powers are given to it in the Constitution

" That means no banning, restricting, subsidizing, or punishing immigration."

No, that means guarding our borders, and keeping clear citizens and non citizens

" Most of Ron Paul's immigration policy (should I say most off his entire philosophy) is based on this hands off idea."

No, most of it is based off the constitution. He wants hands off where there isnt a direct call for govt to be hands on in certain areas

" This is evident in his opposition to the welfare state subsidizing immigration,"

No, there is not call in the Constitution for subsidizuing immigration

" his desire to make immigration easier, "

Nothing in the COnstitution says immigrating legally has to be hell

"and opposition to things like a national ID card or E-verify. "

We have a right to our privacy. Govt has no business in our personal affairs. Citizens are provate . Govt is public, not vice versa

"However it is not so evident in his opposition to amnesty, "
Amnesty is not in the constitution

"I can't see how crossing into a county should be classified as an act of force. "

It is illegal. Rule of Law

"In an ideal society, government wouldn't have such power over immigration; "

You've been worn on every other point your ideal society is wrong.
Yes a govt should have say over its own immigration

"people would have the liberty to come and go as the wish without the government's hand in the way, so long as they didn't initiate force along the way. "

Absolutely, our citizens shoudl enjoy this . Out law abiding citizens certainly have this liberty. People who break the law do not. Breaking the law to be here illegally certainly dones not give you this right.

"One explanation that popped into my head was respect for the rule of law."

SHould have been first thing

" While I believe natural law trumps any and all laws,"

No, the Constitution is the highest law in the land

" maybe Ron Paul doesn't. "

Ron Paul is the Champion of the Constitution

"However that would mean no amnesty for any other victimless crimes if he is president, such as tax-evasion, draft-evasion, prostitution, or selling drugs. "

Broken Laws are broken law. That is why he wants to CHANGE the other laws so that some of those on your list are no longer illegal

"Other explanations would be appreciated. Thanks"

My take is this, You break laws, how can you be considered as a good citizen? You cant

I don't beleive in the "papers please" state, but I don't see why expired visas dont whow up as an outstanding warrant.

If I get pulled over by a cop, he will check to see if I have any outstanding warrants. If I had an expired visa it shoudl go though due process of the courts to show up in the warrant system as an outstandign warrant.

Anyone with an outdate visa that gets pulled over for speeding shoudl be discovered for their outstanding warrand and due process for deprtation shoudl commence.

It is wrong to have the only immigration enforcement be done only at the border. We should start with expired visas, and move forward from there. People who do not break our laws shoudl have route to citizenshop. Break the law (yes this means being here illegal) and you dont get citizenship... ever.

Play by the rules if you want ot be a citizen, dont break oour laws.

All because something is legal doesn't make it right.

Mind you, everything Stalin and Hitler did was perfectly legal. And those who resisted we honor, not condemn for disrespect for the rule of law.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

National ID

The reason he is against National ID card is because it's a form of tracking with t he RFID chip, which they already do with cell phones but only in closed societies they have such ID's. That is why Ron Paul is against it. The plan of the NWO is for a surveilled society, the National Id card is playing right into the hands of the power elites goals. Ron Paul thinks it's Orwellian and so do I.

i just really don't feel like reviewing secondary social issues

at this point, given how hands full we are

He's also a Constitutionalist

And a man who takes his oath seriously. One of the delegated powers in the constitution is the security of our borders. And without borders you have no country

Ron's Immigration policy

I've been following Ron since 2007 and have found more than once that when I've had a disagreement with him and I research things a bit more I see that he was right more often than not.

Hans Herman Hoppe deals with immigration in his book "Democracy: The God that failed". He reasons there that it comes down to land ownership and property rights. For instance there is no "free immigration" onto the land/residence/business you own. Instead people only come onto that land by invitation and remain there only at the owner's sayso.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, all land would be privately owned. Because we have the current situation where we have public or joint ownership of land, then we must agree to jointly restrict access to those we want there. So government must pass laws and only allow those in or onto the land that are invited (pass whatever criteria is set for legal immigration). If people come without that approval, they should be forcibly removed.

Until all land is privately owned this is the best situation (most closely follows private ownership and property rights results) that we can have.

As I understand his full philosophy,

it is a problem that will fix itself if we get our house in order. If our economy is solidly on a firm currency and has a robust free market, there won't be a huge need for subpar, cheap labor. Also, with no freebies, and no anchor babies (revoke birthright citizenship), the only people here will be competing on an even footing and it won't matter if they're here or not. The lack of social freebies, will keep the numbers manageable. No inhumane treatment or breaking up of families. The criminals will be deported and the rest will just go home.

agree

i'd like to add.. it is a problem that will fix itself if government follow the constitution

Me too.

I attended a meeting for the hispanic republican caucus and the state charter was in favor of national id cards.. how comical... as if I want to spend another 4 hours at the DMV. I even have a native american friend who can't get a state ID because she is under 21 and her mom is in another state's res and can't attend the dmv in person....

I will have to say that Chuck Baldwins overzealous immigration policy that he put above so many more important issues was very disheartening. But I am stoked to vote for Ron Paul this election no matter what :)!

Also

I have family in Mexico. They are a very proud, nationalistic, family-loving, but financially and corruption oppressed people. They like being Mexicans and have national and cultural pride in their heritage. Most who immigrate here for work do so for just that: work. The typical illegal Mexican worker shared a home with several other Mexican workers and most worked for 6 months straight saving as much money as possible, sending money home often to support their families, then went home for 6 months to be with their families and live large. Then the cycle repeats. Most had NO interest in giving up their nationality to become Americans. They like being Mexican and want to remain Mexicans. The ONLY reason they came here was to make a lot of money and go back home to their families. It was an economic choice and opportunity that has since dried up. Most have gone back home for good.
How long would an ideal society last that allowed a flooding of the labor market against permanent Citizen laborers?

Galatians 5:1
It is for FREEDOM that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

"Most have gone back home for good."

sure they have. come to jersey.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

I wouldn't worry too much

I wouldn't worry too much about immigration because this issue is going away soon anyway. Who wants to break IN to the Soviet Union?

For the first time since the depresssion more Mexicans leave the US than enter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-first-time-since-dep...

"Who wants to break IN to the Soviet Union?"

No one, but they sure wanted to break out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esp-ruhkZqQ

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Exactly. Good video!

Exactly.

Good video!

Clarify please.

In an ideal society and natural law are polar opposites.
Natural Law recognizes that there will always be egomaniacs, the gullible, the weak, the selfish, the criminals, the cheaters, the greedy, the jealous, the lazy, the grifters & the spoiled brats alive & well in any so-imagined ideal society.

You need to have some form of Gov to protect society & jails to house those who kill for pleasure.

Did I misunderstand you when I assumed you didn't want any of these safeguards?
Thanks.

Galatians 5:1
It is for FREEDOM that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

I'm not an Anarchist, if that's what you mean.

I do recognize the need for prisons, police, courts, and such.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

Act of force

Mass immigration is part of the planned Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. The illegal alien influx is a mechanism for leveraging what is yet to come.

It is an act of force if the US Government takes from me under threat of force to give to someone else, illegal immigrant or not.

I am self employed, and it makes me wonder why I should even bother to work anymore. Many I know have just went out of business.

Can I opt out of paying for illegal immigrants welfare, education, and healthcare? I don't see that opt-out check-box on my 1040, anyone know where that is?

It's not because I am not a humanitarian, it's math, this just cannot be sustained.

My question; Who will feed the poor if we are all poor?

the bottom two commenters get

the bottom two commenters get it. I think Paul's position on immigration is good but he could be a little more vocal - one of the many things I hear from conservatives/republicans is that he isn't "tough" - well immigration is just as widely contested a topic as foreign policy, and if Paul just accentuated his views he might win some more people over who are single issue voters on this topic. now granted, he will lose some to, but since he has attached himself to the Republican party because his ideas are more aligned today in philosophical outlook, he should just cash in on it. it seems to me he has more trouble in getting fellow Republicans to like him than independents and democrats. the idea that Romney is the "presumptive nominee" is just a testament to the lack of conviction in conservatives and their willingness to accept the candidate handed to them by the media/big lobbies/financial establishment. libertarianism is not the only way to describe Paul - he is also a paleoconsverative like Pat Buchanan to a large extent.

there is no left or right, only system and anti-system.

In the ideal libertarian world,

there is ZERO government. Just like Marxist utopians, anarcho-capitalists don't seem to realize that's never going to happen. Suppose we had open borders and anyone and everyone who wanted to come here illegally came. Not only would this country's population double in twenty years, but its economy would tank because there wouldn't be enough job demand for that large of an influx of working-age people. Crime already goes up with an influx of immigrants from countries poorer than the U.S., but by granting amnesty (opening the borders) and ending welfare, the crime rate would skyrocket. Also, there's the allegiance factor. Most people that come to the U.S. don't come here because they want to become Americans (although they want to be able to partake in all the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens), they come here for higher-paying jobs. That means although they want to live and work in this country, their loyalty first and foremost is to another country. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what kind of problems could crop up if even as much as one-fifth the population in America has loyalties to other countries above America.

exactly

the difference is between theoretical (ideal world) and the one we have to work with now.

What if

I am going to throw out a couple of what if here and hope the question can be settled according to libertarian views.

What if a post Ron Paul America enjoys prosperity once again while Mexico does not. What if in that situation people will be escaping poverty and abuse and just cross the border.
They will come in numbers so great that border states will run out of jobs and crimes will rise.
How does this sit with your views?

What if an African country started ferrying large amounts of people looking for non existent jobs across the Atlantic dirt cheap?

My views on the matter are that an open borde policy has never worked unless we are talking about settlers. The reason is simple, most people in the world want it better for themselves and most often they want it the easy way and sometimes it is also their only way. They do not possess the means to create wealth themselves otherwise they would not be immigrating. They can cross the border with nothing but the shirt on their back. When they fail the society that accepted them also feels the pain.
Every country in the world is only a piece of land, it´s the inhabitants that make it what it is based on what they have to work with.
Selective legal immigration in time of need is because of these simple facts the only way to adress this issue. Adding people to a society without reason does not accomplish anything of value except satisfaction of a few minds.

RP never gives a simple answer to a complex problem

Perhaps you're only getting bits and pieces.

He doesn't believe in fences will solve the problem. It's having a strong economy, no entitlement incentives, and decrimminalizing drugs (or at least let the states decide).

As far as securing our borders with troops--that's not really for illegal immigrants coming to get a piece of the American pie rather about the threat of those who want to blow it up. We've managed to piss off a lot of countries with our Global Police Force mentality. It's going to take a long time to defuse that if ever.

To me it sounds like you're in more agreement with his immigration policies than you realize ???

Respect For Property Rights

As an owner of property, I am allowed to restrict access to my property to people of my choosing. That being said, the USA was created for the benefit of its citizens. That means the property of the USA belongs to its citizens and we have a right to defend it and restrict access. A wholly open border makes as much sense as to let the redcoats have unrestricted access during the Revolutionary War.

I accept that as a nation that is still, in some cases, more benevolent to its people than adjacent nations, we will have people that desire to come here. I do wish to try to be as welcoming as possible as long as those who come here also follow the libertarian principle of "first, do no harm". If a foreign individual comes here and gets on welfare, they have caused harm to us. I believe you should have a right to come here as long as you do the opposite of causing harm and instead help our society.

Ron Paul's proposals are to end things like welfare, free hospital care, spending our taxes on education of illegal aliens, etc. By ending such socialist programs and ending the birth-right citizenship, I believe we will see a significant drop in those who come here and by their actions, cause harm to our nation. If Ron Paul gets elected and makes major changes to our fiscal and economic policies, I believe we will have a major growth in our economy and production. We may end up with the lowest unemployment rates we have seen in decades. In the event of a massive shortage of labor, we could be a lot more generous with our legal immigration. However, such generosity must be met with a requirement that those who come here should not be a burden on our society.

Another thing to consider is the expansion of freedom and liberty as a message to other nations. I doubt your average border-crosser into the US really desires to leave their family behind in search of work, prosperity, etc. I think most people would choose to stay in their home nation if they weren't faced with the situation imposed by poorly-run governments in their respective nations. If Mexico was as free as our ideal USA would be, why would anyone want to leave there?

An open border policy only works as long as those who seek to take advantage of it subscribe to a "do no harm" policy. Coming freely into another nation and undermining it economically is not a right.

________________________________________

Property rights work both ways

Yes, of course you can restrict access if it's your property, but you should also be able to allow access without government telling you you can't. On your other point, I agree, immigrants(no one for that matter) should cause harm to another person. That's why I'm all for dismantling the welfare state.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

also welcome visitors

tend to come through the front door not sneaking in.You might choose to invite someone inside your home if they knocked on the front door, but how would you react if you found that person crawling in a window you left open?