A problem with Ron Paul's immigration policySubmitted by Gregor97 on Sun, 04/15/2012 - 13:58
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.