Ron Paul's immigration ideas

North County Times ^ | May 24, 2007 | Bill Hasty

[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.

[The_Eaglet]

My my so it all started with Billy Jeff and GWB then?

It probably did not. LBJ comes to mind.

[abigailsmybaby]

Yep. He’s just another ultra liberal bozo.

/s

[Austin Willard Wright]

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.

[Austin Willard Wright]

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.

[John D]

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.

[The_Eaglet]

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

[John D]

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.

[cva66snipe]

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.

[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’.

[OCCASparky]

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?

[militant0]

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.

[MEGoody]

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.

[MEGoody]

He was a flight surgeon during Viet Nam.

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

[BigTom85]

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

[Sam Gamgee]

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

[P-40]

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

[The_Eaglet]

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.

[MEGoody]

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.

[BigTom85]

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.

[MEGoody]

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?