-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.

NO - I want the government to

NO - I want the government to enforce the nation's boundaries and sovereignty, which is one of the few functions it actually has alloted to it in the constitution. our "history" proves no such thing, and we are only a few hundred years old. theres much more to a nation than a simple belief in liberty. if this is how you think then why have nations at all - why not just surrender to globalism and the new world order and give up fighting right now, because the only way to actually enact a one world government is to break down all difference in culture and the existence of independent states. blaming inter-ethnic conflict on the war on drugs/welfare state, although maybe related indirectly, is just silly - it reminds me of the way liberals blame everything on socioeconomic status. it is turf war pure and simple. when people lose their identity or will-to-survive they are conquered by stronger people who have both, and this is what we are witnessing before our eyes because "liberty" embodied is too abstract to use as a definition for a nation. and that American exceptionalism that assumes only sheeple who are mental slaves in the U.S. are free is really a joke. I think there is much more intellectual freedom and discussion in some other countries compared to the stiflement of speech by PC/liberal domination/authoritarian cultural marxism which we have here.

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

Several things...

"I want the government to enforce the nation's boundaries and sovereignty, which is one of the few functions it actually has alloted to it in the constitution."

I agree.

"if this is how you think then why have nations at all - why not just surrender to globalism and the new world order and give up fighting right now, because the only way to actually enact a one world government is to break down all difference in culture and the existence of independent states."

Whoa there, how do you get from free immigration to losing sovereignty? Do you know what sovereignty is? It has nothing to do with controlling immigration - it's about who makes the laws in a given territory. The U.S. is a sovereign nation insofar as U.S. law is unrivaled on U.S. territory. Free immigration has got nothing to do with "surrendering to globalism." You might note that our present government is NOT for free immigration, and they ARE for globalism - hmmmm, how's that make sense?

"blaming inter-ethnic conflict on the war on drugs/welfare state, although maybe related indirectly, is just silly - it reminds me of the way liberals blame everything on socioeconomic status."

The condition of the inner cities, the gang culture that pervades them, and all the resulting violence, is the product of 1) the War on Drugs, and 2) the welfare-State. I'm not going to even debate this with you, as it is self-evident for anyone with any understanding of either. And I'm not making the same claim as the "liberals," I'm not absolving the criminals themselves of responsibility, they are fully responsible in a legal sense.

"and that American exceptionalism that assumes only sheeple who are mental slaves in the U.S. are free is really a joke. I think there is much more intellectual freedom and discussion in some other countries compared to the stiflement of speech by PC/liberal domination/authoritarian cultural marxism which we have here."

That's certainly true.

"it is turf war pure and simple. when people lose their identity or will-to-survive they are conquered by stronger people who have both, and this is what we are witnessing before our eyes because "liberty" embodied is too abstract to use as a definition for a nation."

What now...we're being conquered from without? Really? Seems to me we're collapsing from within, thanks to the sheeple you mention. I don't see hordes of enemies at the gates, but maybe I'm not looking through the lens of mindless nationalistic fear, so...

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

and when the dollar goes down

and when the dollar goes down and financial collapse is upon us - i don't expect anything but the worse to follow.

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

Don't pontificate

The only unity we need is liberty in government. What you're talking about is collectivism - when everybody has to be alike. That's vile

wolfe's picture

Ron Paul has addressed this already.

In a manner consistent with libertarian principles and with the Republican Party platform.

His statement was that he is for closing the borders so long as the entitlement programs exist. Theoretically, he would be for removing immigration restrictions once that was addressed (he has made that statement). He has often said that he is strongly in favor of far more legal immigration.

And in this way, he satisfies my libertarian ideals since taking of entitlement money by those who did not contribute is theft. Further, he is for open borders, through legal means.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

"Through legal means"

Performing an action that doesn't involve force (buying a gun, immigrating, and starting a business) through legal means usually means obeying restrictions and regulations that are implemented by the force of the government. If there was only laws against initiation of force (like there should be) the only way to not do something legally would obviously be through aggression. And merely crossing a border, without trespassing on private property is not force or aggression.

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

~Ludwig von Mises

It's trespassing to cross a border

if you are not a citizen

Trespassing on whose property?

Since when the does the federal government own the land along the border?

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

Well, would you be in favor of doing away with borders

entirely? In other words, eliminate the United States of America and just make it part of the Western Hemisphere? What happened to standing up for our national sovereignty?

Not at all

The primary function of the border is to define jurisdiction; i.e. the border defines the territory in which US law is dominant. That is the meaning of national sovereignty: a monopoly on law within a specific jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with immigration one way or another.

See my post (above or below...somewhere on this thread) about the history of immigration control - it is a modern invention. The US had no immigration control at all until 1875! Most nations that have ever existed have had free immigration, from the ancient world until very recently.

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

First of all , I don't think

First of all , I don't think anyone can agree with everything a politician, and in this case Ron Paul, says or will do . Opposition to Dr. Paul's immigration policies or any of his policies for that fact is reasonable. If you were listening to Dr Paul speak , then you would know that it should be a State issue on immigration , and not one of the Federal Government . Secondly , I guess you didn't listen to yourself ... you said

" 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 "

Well sir , immigration is not all about the " coming and going " , but rather the " coming and staying " .

As for amnesty, I don't agree with it simply because there are people that are going through the correct process of becoming citizens . To ' bump ' someone ahead of them that has been here without permission is just not right . The way immigration also works is that if a person would be productive to this country . Many who come here end up on state and federal programs that places a burden on this countries economy .

If this was the case like you are suggestiing , I guess I could wander on and off your property whenever I wanted , I could walk in and out of your home whenever I wanted , I could sleep on your livingroom couch without paying you a dime , I could borrow money from you without having to pay you back . . .

No bumping involved

When I observe that there are people already inside the country and many other waiting to get in; I don't think we should even it out by kicking out all the ones inside. Instead I think we should even it out by opening the borders and letting the others in; neither group will be given priority. Open borders also go hand in hand with eliminating the welfare state. Just like eliminating heath care entitlements goes along with deregulating the health care industry and getting government out.

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

~Ludwig von Mises

Breaking the law is breaking the law.

There are reasons those laws are in place.. many of them but he advocates removing the goodies that drive people to break the laws in the first place and streamlining the immigration process so those who wish to come here will be less likely to jump a fence and break the laws.

Immigration is by far one of his strong points.. not weak. As with all of his approaches.. He comes at them with a fair hand and a level logical head.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

What?

"Breaking the law is breaking the law," I can't believe I'm hearing such a boot-licking comment from a libertarian. The law is only legitimate insofar as it is just! No non-aggressive action is a crime, therefore crossing a border with the permission of the property owner on whose property your traveling cannot be a crime, and no law saying it is a crime is just or legitimate.

A libertarian president should pardon all individuals accused or convicted of non-crimes like, for example, drug possession and illegal immigration.

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

I think the guy below nailed it.

I respect the rule of law, especially in this case. Who the fuck is giving these illegals permission?

You're dealing with National security and property rights along with sovereign laws.. Deal with it.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

"Who the fuck is giving these illegals permission?"

Who gave you permission to walk onto your neighbors property? No one except your neighbor? So then why should Jose or Wang or whoever have to ask the permission of anyone but the person on whose property he finds himself for permission to enter said property? You don't own the country, neither does the federal government. Individual private property owners do, and if they individually want to allow a foreigner on their property, why does the permission of anyone else need to be sought?

Good lord, first it's "breaking the law is breaking the law," now vague appeals to "national security," and finally, "[if you don't like it] deal with it" ....By these comments alone, I would expect you to be a neocon bootlicker and avid Hannity subscriber, not a Ron Paul libertarian.

Check yourself.

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

You're an idiot lol

This land is my land, this land is your land (Whistles the rest)

Uh dummy? That's what sovereign land means.. One of the Federal governments jobs is to protect the nations borders.. They were appointed by the people (Crooked as that may be this day) to do that job.. All of America owns the land "collectively" and individuals own their own pieces and each state there in respectively. They ARE stepping into our yards without permission (see: immigration laws to protect our border)

You want a NWO scenario.. it ain't gonna happen. Keep trying to twist history to fit your own twisted ideals.

If anyone subscribes to boot-licking it would be you with your tongue scrapping the soul of the almighty elite and their drive for one world government.

BTW.. Dr Paul has made himself clear on immigration and he supports sovereign nations.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Yup

This guy is just trying to deceive

Ah, yes of course....

"One of the Federal governments jobs is to protect the nations borders.. They were appointed by the people (Crooked as that may be this day) to do that job.."

Really? Which part of the Constitution gives the federal government the responsibility to control immigration?

*crickets*

You might note, however, that there was no immigration control in this country at all until 1875.

I'll say that again, there was no immigration control in this country at all until 1875.

The founders didn't pass any immigration control laws, nor their successors for several generations. What the founders did do, in accordance with Article I, section 8, is establish a uniform rule of naturalization. But they left the borders wide open...

Guess they too were a bunch of NWO shills with "twisted ideals" trying to wreck the sovereignty of the nation they had just created, right? Hmmm...

As for the meaning of national sovereignty...you say it requires immigration control. Well, by your definition, the US was not a sovereign nation until 1875 then, correct? Or am I missing some subtlety of your ingenious and well researched position? And all the other nations (almost all nations that ever existed) with free immigration, they also don't count as sovereign? Wow, this sovereignty business is hard to come by, eh? The Roman Empire, Athens, Venice, Medieval France, Spain, Holland, Britain, and on and on...none of them were real sovereign nations according to r4pres.

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

How is it that they left the borders wide open?

You mean because people would travel without passport? lol

Sure, try that today and everyone with common sense knows what will happen.. I don't want an open border.. even Dr.Paul recognizes the importance of securing our borders and keeping those that would see us harmed and there are people out there that would do it. Is that neocon to recognize danger?

I'm all for opening up the borders as wide as possible.. but there cannot be at this time a free pass from one Nation to another.. Dr.Paul proposes easier immigration but not the abolitionism of it.

I will never work for open borders because I know that's what NWO types want.. Hell why not make the entire world a single country then we can all be free.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

"How is it that they left the borders wide open"

Hmm, not sure how to explain the concept of an open border any more clearly. Well, there's the border, and then there's no one on the border with a gun checking to see who crosses, nor anyone deeper inside the country with a gun looking to deport "illegals." It's a pretty simple concept actually.

"Sure, try that today and everyone with common sense knows what will happen.. I don't want an open border.. even Dr.Paul recognizes the importance of securing our borders and keeping those that would see us harmed and there are people out there that would do it. Is that neocon to recognize danger?"

What will happen is pretty much what's happening now, except the illegals would just be called immigrants, they would enter by safer routes, and we wouldn't be spending billions annually in a futile attempt to keep them out. You realize that part of the problem with controlled immigration is that it's impossible to achieve? Even the Soviet Union, with a brutal totalitarian police-state couldn't keep people from crossing the border (in that case, exiting)? Attempting to prevent immigrants from flowing across a border is as futile as attempting to prevent drugs or any other goods from crossing a border. The free market always wins out over arbitrary government restrictions.

"I will never work for open borders because I know that's what NWO types want.. Hell why not make the entire world a single country then we can all be free."

Why do you continue to equate free immigration with world government? The one has nothing to do with the other. We HAD free immigration, almost all nations had it, and there was no world government! I don't know what else to say...non sequitur.

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

Because

"Why do you continue to equate free immigration with world government?"

That's what it would be in today's climate. They're pushing for AU as they have for EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_imm...

The current Libertarian Party (US) Platform states that Libertarians are prepared to welcome refugees, and the LP works against discriminatory policies. In addition it states that a free market requires the free movement of both capital and labor across borders. The platform does allow for control over the entry of people who pose a credible threat to security, health, or property. [1]

Older Libertarian Party (US) Platform stances were more pro-open borders. The 2004 Platform called for "the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally". [2] Due to fears from the 2001 Terrorist attack, this was changed to permit some immigration controls.
Opponents of mass immigration within the libertarian movement

Within recent times, some libertarians, especially paleolibertarians such as Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul, have voiced concerns pertaining to the traditional "open borders" policy held by most libertarians. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has argued much in his writings about open borders being against Anarcho-capitalist theory.

As you'll notice, even in your own little party, things change. I just found something else that I find stupid about the Libertarian party today. You can't stick your head in the sand about how the government has fucked our good name internationally and that there aren't any dangers with a completely open border.. If you say you can, then as far as I'm concerned, you're dangerous and not in a good way. A moron kind of dangerous.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I'm not a Libertarian...

...I'm a libertarian registered Republican to vote Paul.

And for the rest of it, you didn't say anything of substance, just more personal attacks. So I think this conversation is over now. I'll just conclude by saying that you r4pres are as ignorant as you are rude.

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

So I was right.. You were just hiding behind

property rights and citing Libertarian views for your own agenda.. I think you are giving up because you're here to bash Libetarians and now that you see I'm at odds with some of their stuff, you figure your work is done lol.

Sigh.. What a good laugh that is. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

You don't sound lIke a Ron Paul supporter

You sound like someone here with another agenda

And what is my ulterior agenda?

To advance the cause of liberty? How dare I! (rolls eyes)

It's days like these, arguing with you fine folks, that I have to remind myself that many of you were once neocons, and never entirely shed that foul ideology.

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

That's a neocon favorite trick lol

Call neocon first and they win they believe. Dude you're about as fucked up on Liberty as any rougue moron I've seen on this site and you're doing EXACTLY the same shit I see when talking to my neocon customers.. They rave about how Liberty minded they are and are as far off from it as a gold miner is from gold in a glass factory.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Hmmm....

So let me see if I understand.

I want the federal government to leave private property owners alone, and stop violating their rights by restricting immigration. You think the federal government should violate private property rights via immigration controls to benefit the collective, because America is somehow owned by all of us.

And I'm against liberty? Well, I guess war is peace, freedom is slavery, etc.

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

No, you want to hide behind property rights

as a way to justify NWO agendas.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

LOL

"you want to hide behind property rights as a way to justify NWO agendas."

...I guess we libertarians do have a tendency to "hide behind property rights," given that the entire philosophy of libertarianism is based on the idea of property right and all...LOL

That is the funniest damn thing I've read in a long time, thanks again.

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