Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul's immigration ideas
North County Times ^ | May 24, 2007 | Bill Hasty

Posted on 05/31/2007 8:18:49 AM PDT by The_Eaglet

A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked.

This is Congressman Ron Paul's six-point plan: 1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. ... 2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. ... 3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 million to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That's a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws. 4. No welfare for illegal aliens.

(Excerpt) Read more at nctimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2008; rino; ronisright; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last
To: Lovebloggers
My my so it all started with Billy Jeff and GWB then?

It probably did not. LBJ comes to mind.

81 posted on 05/31/2007 6:37:25 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Yep. He’s just another ultra liberal bozo.

/s


82 posted on 05/31/2007 6:39:49 PM PDT by abigailsmybaby (I was born with nothing. So far I have most of it left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lovebloggers
We were asked to be in Saudia Arabia. We needed to be there. You want to rewrite history here with fairy tale endings of peace and prosperity with non-interventionist foreign policies go right ahead. Just don’t expect the majority of the party to follow you down that path.

Take it up where it matters with the most: argue with the neo-cons like Wolfy who, a man who was instrumental in shapring Iraq policy. It was Wolfy who said back in the 1990s that these troops were facilating terrorism by fueling recruitment of Al Qaeda.

BTW, we were "asked" us to put our troops in Saudi Arabia, not by the "people" there, but an Islamo-fascist king who made Saddam look like a raving feminist and secularist by comparison.

83 posted on 05/31/2007 6:44:20 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Lovebloggers
Sans typos.

We were asked to be in Saudia Arabia. We needed to be there. You want to rewrite history here with fairy tale endings of peace and prosperity with non-interventionist foreign policies go right ahead. Just don’t expect the majority of the party to follow you down that path.

Take it up where it matters the most: argue with the neo-cons like Wolfy who, a man who was instrumental in shaping Iraq policy. It was Wolfy who said back in the 1990s that these troops wer fueling terrorism by fueling recruitment of Al Qaeda.

BTW, we were "asked" us to put our troops in Saudi Arabia, not by the "people" there, but an Islamo-fascist king who made Saddam look like a raving feminist and secularist by comparison.

84 posted on 05/31/2007 6:45:36 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: carenot
He was a flight surgeon during Viet Nam.
*************************************************************************************
So what, that does not prove he would fight. Even Jimmy Carter and John Kerry were in the military. At least they fought, I do not know how hard, but they fought.
Ron Paul did what he was supposed to do in Viet Nam, save American lives. I applaud him for that. My problem with him is that he now wants to waste the lives spent over there by cutting and running. If we cut, run and surrender like he wants to do it will only embolden the terrorists. They will see us as weak and again have no fear to attack us again. If that happens we will have to start all over again from scratch, which will cost many more American lives.
85 posted on 05/31/2007 6:50:42 PM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: John D; Austin Willard Wright

Strengthening the borders and enforcing immigration law is anything but surrender.


86 posted on 05/31/2007 6:56:00 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet

Strengthening the borders and enforcing immigration law is anything but surrender.
**************************************************************************************************************8
I am all for strengthening the borders and enforcing immigration law. What I am against is surrendering to the terrorists. Ron Paul has many issues I agree with, but the most important, National Security, is one where he is way off base.


87 posted on 05/31/2007 7:01:56 PM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
Ron Paul is the Rockefeller Republican’s worse nightmare. He stands up against all their bad policy and threatens their very way of life which is creating Bigger Government. No war can be fought or won under our current leadership and no war can be won when our borders are not secure. Bush’s latest war is the War On Conservatives for daring to speak against his Amnesty and against our best interest policies with Mexico. Yes indeed they fear ones like Ron Paul who sheds light on their tyranny.
88 posted on 05/31/2007 11:14:22 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Actually Paul voted for the Afghan campaign in response to the 9/11 attacks. He apparently believes in punitive strikes in extraordinary cases such as large scale attacks that have clearly identifiable perpetrators. I think his issue is that maybe we should take a 2nd look at the idea of trying to clean out every rat’s nest around the world. Let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak. But if they begin to stir, that’s another story. Sorta an updated Reaganism - ‘trust but verify’ becomes ‘let alone, but do not ignore’.
89 posted on 06/01/2007 1:30:31 AM PDT by militant0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: carenot
You need to check him out more if you believe that he wouldn't fight. He was a flight surgeon during Viet Nam.

And John Kerry ran riverboats in Vietnam. Your point?
90 posted on 06/01/2007 4:41:28 AM PDT by OCCASparky (Steely-Eyed Killer of the Deep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: John D
Surrendering on national security would *never* be acceptable to me. My very handle (the same or similar on most internet services) is partly a result of a very stubborn, almost angry reaction to the idea of anyone doing America harm. However, kicking hornet nests doesn’t seem to be a very smart way of being ‘safe’.

My father left a nest of copperheads unmolested down on the riverbank in our back yard, when I was little. A few years ago I asked him why he did that, with my sister and I running around all summer. His response was rather simple. If they were in the nest, he knew where they were, and could steer his children away from that area. If he had destroyed their nest, they might have taken up residence in scattered places around the property, and all of us would be at much higher risk no matter where we were in the yard.

I believe Iraq bears this analogy out. We no longer know where the enemy is, he is dispersed among the population, his range is spreading, and he strikes at will.

91 posted on 06/01/2007 8:27:04 AM PDT by militant0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: BigTom85
He believes the US has no responsibility to enforce UN resolutions... and hes 100% right.

However, Iraq had fired on our planes a number of times, and there was evidence (still is out there) that Iraq was helping terrorists. So, UN resolutions aside, we had cause to go into Iraq.

92 posted on 06/01/2007 9:50:06 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: carenot
He was a flight surgeon during Viet Nam.

I think John Kerry served in Viet Nam too. ::sarc::

93 posted on 06/01/2007 9:52:59 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Why had Iraq fired on our planes? Yes, thats right.. because we were engaged in previous conflicts with them.
94 posted on 06/01/2007 3:24:27 PM PDT by BigTom85 (Proud Gun Owner and Member of NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: P-40

I read it and it says a lot more than Paul is alluding to - he basically cherry picked what he liked.


95 posted on 06/01/2007 3:27:30 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee

Be a little hard to hit all the highlights of a 600 page document, not counting the staff monographs, in a minute or two.


96 posted on 06/01/2007 4:19:00 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: militant0
Actually Paul voted for the Afghan campaign in response to the 9/11 attacks. He apparently believes in punitive strikes in extraordinary cases such as large scale attacks that have clearly identifiable perpetrators. I think his issue is that maybe we should take a 2nd look at the idea of trying to clean out every rat’s nest around the world. Let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak. But if they begin to stir, that’s another story. Sorta an updated Reaganism - ‘trust but verify’ becomes ‘let alone, but do not ignore’.

Thank you for that good summary, militant0. I agree with your analogies.

97 posted on 06/03/2007 12:22:03 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: BigTom85
Why had Iraq fired on our planes? Yes, thats right.. because we were engaged in previous conflicts with them.

We were NOT involved in a conflict when they fired on our planes. I'm sure you know that, but are trying your best to put forth SOME argument, no matter how weak.

98 posted on 06/08/2007 10:01:41 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
We were NOT involved in a conflict when they fired on our planes. I'm sure you know that, but are trying your best to put forth SOME argument, no matter how weak.

If you read my reply.. I said that we were invovled in PREVIOUS conflicts with them.

STOP putting words in my mouth.
99 posted on 06/08/2007 4:12:13 PM PDT by BigTom85 (Proud Gun Owner and Member of NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: BigTom85

So you are saying any previous conflict every had with someone justifies their shooting at our planes at any time? If not, then why the heck did you even bring it up?


100 posted on 06/11/2007 10:05:35 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson