Posted on 06/27/2007 9:21:18 AM PDT by NHGOPer
The Honor of Ron Paul by Joe Sobran
"He may have become at last what he has always deserved to be: the most respected member of the U.S. Congress. He is also the only Republican candidate for president who is truly what all the others pretend to be, namely, a conservative. His career shows that a patriotic, pacific conservatism isn’t a paradox."
(Excerpt) Read more at buchanan.org ...
First of all, thank you for providing the link to the Immigration Position Paper for the Libertarian Pary. I was able fo find the quotations.
Second, reading the actual position paper, I can only conclude that you were being misleading when you claimed in post #86 that: “The Libertarian position on immigration is actually quite a bit more “conservative” than the position any Republican politician has taken.”
If you read the position paper and the party platform, you find that the Libertarian Positions are:
- A virtual fence so immigrants would be encouraged to use formal border crossing locatations.
- The only restrictions on immigration would be background checks and a physical. In fact, the position paper you quoted still includes this statement: “The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America.”
So, in your opinion, ‘free and open immigration’ is the conservative position?
Also, in post #86, you posted this statement: “First off, no Libertarian I know of is advocating illegal immigration when they advocate reducing restrictions on where and how people can travel and work.”
It should be clear at this point that the Libertarian position on immigration is essentially the same as the proposed amnesty bill recently shot down by real conservatives because it solved the illegal immigration problem by making all immigration legal. And, yet, you claim this is the ‘more conservative positions’.
You also state in #86, this: “”Suppose we increased the level of immigration, but the rule would be that immigrants and their descendants would have no access to government social services, including welfare, Social Security, health care, business subsidies, and the public schools.” implying that the solution to our immigration problems is in denying welfare to immigrants. But we find in the Libertarian Position paper you referenced that you failed to include the next sentence which reads: “ I would argue, first, that there would be no lack of takers for that proposition.” One can only conclude that the statements you partially included have nothing to do with an attempt to solve the immigration problem.
Yes, you were ‘misleading’.
Yes, you were ‘misleading’.
Somehow you think that quoting from the Libertarian web site as a way of explaining their position is misleading, and you still insist on twisting their positions -- like claiming that advocating more open legal immigration, including securing the border and requiring background checks, etc. for immigrants is equivalent to supporting illegal immigration.
One can only conclude that the statements you partially included have nothing to do with an attempt to solve the immigration problem.
It is clear to me that you are determined to find fault with whatever ideas are proposed by the Libertarians.
But what I don't get is why you reject out of hand the ideas they propose for allowing increased levels of immigration, but where the immigrants and their descendants are not eligible for any government services. You claim that isn't a "conservative" position, so presumably as a result you believe it is a "liberal" position. Somehow that just doesn't make sense to me. I certainly wouldn't expect a Democratic Party member to sponsor a bill to cut off government services to immigrants (legal and illegal). Interestingly conservative Republicans have proposed cutting off government services to illegal immigrants - not going as far as the Libertarians propose, but implementing one of the steps they call for in their platform. So how is it misleading to point out, as I posted previously, that some of the Libertarian ideas are more conservative in nature than the ideas being promoted by politicians who call themselves conservative?
“Somehow you think that quoting from the Libertarian web site as a way of explaining their position is misleading,”
I believe it is misleading to partially quote their positions especially when the next sentence following the quote you gave indicates that the Libertarian position is that denying immigrants benefits is not a solution to the immigration problem.
“...and you still insist on twisting their positions — like claiming that advocating more open legal immigration, including securing the border and requiring background checks, etc. for immigrants is equivalent to supporting illegal immigration.”
Never said it was equivalent. I said that it was not conservative and was more liberal than the ‘amnesty bill’ just rejected by the Senate.
For example, the Senate amnesty bill at least put limits on immigration. And, I’m hardly twisting their position when I point out the official Libertarian position from the paper you referenced calls for ‘free and open immigration’.
Nor am I distorting their position when I point out that their version of regulating the borders consists of a virtual fence to “encourage” immigrants to use official border crossings so that we might check their vaccination records.
“So how is it misleading to point out, as I posted previously, that some of the Libertarian ideas are more conservative in nature than the ideas being promoted by politicians who call themselves conservative?”
Simply because when you make statements like: “Seeing the whole story puts the idea of more open (but still regulated) borders in quite a different light. The Libertarian position on immigration is actually quite a bit more “conservative” than the position any Republican politician has taken.”, you grossly distort the Libertarian position. “More open”? The Libertarians would have “free and open” borders. “Regulated”? No limits on immigration is “regulated”. You might call these positions many things, but conservative is not one of them.
But you are correct, when the complete Libertarian position is fairly expressed it does put those positions in a “different light”.
“It is clear to me that you are determined to find fault with whatever ideas are proposed by the Libertarians.”
Quite the contrary. I find some Libertarian positions, especially on economic matters, quite compelling. I find their positons on defense and social issues, well, misguided at best.
So I take it you think the idea of denying any governmental benefits to immigrants, as a condition of their being allowed to immigrate, is a bad idea?
And I presume, by your statements, that you think a physical fence will work better than a network of sensors to detect illegal border crossers. How does a fence 50 miles from the nearest guard or road stop anyone with even primitive tools from cutting a hole in the fence and walking right in?
OUR foreign policy had nothing to do with the European theater.
FDR got us in by cutting off Japanese oil supplies.
You must not be a conservative.
Correct, government is the problem.
“So I take it you think the idea of denying any governmental benefits to immigrants, as a condition of their being allowed to immigrate, is a bad idea?”
Why do you think that is important? Even the Libertarian position paper you referenced says it will do little to stem the tide of immigration.
“And I presume, by your statements, that you think a physical fence will work better than a network of sensors to detect illegal border crossers. How does a fence 50 miles from the nearest guard or road stop anyone with even primitive tools from cutting a hole in the fence and walking right in?”
It will work far better than the Libertarian virtual fence designed to ‘encourage immigrants to use official crossings’ so we can check their vaccinations. That is from the same Libertarian position paper you referenced.
Now a question for you, do you really care anything about stemming the flow of immigrants or are you also for “free and open borders” like the Libertarian position paper advocates?
Now a question for you, do you really care anything about stemming the flow of immigrants or are you also for “free and open borders” like the Libertarian position paper advocates?
I'm against all illegal immigration, and believe our government has been derelict in its duties to secure our borders and enforce the existing laws. I know that fences alone are purely symbolic, and an array of surveillance devices combined with real border patrol enforcement is the minimum required to secure the land borders of our nation. Penalties for illegal border crossing should be increased, including jail time before deportation, and violators should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I am in favor of reasonable amounts of legal immigration of individuals who have met a set of requirements related to their ability to contribute to the growth of our country, their willingness to forgo government benefits, and background checks related to their character and security concerns. Many of these requirements exist today. They should be strengthened, and people from areas of the world where anti-American sentiments are common should face very thorough scrutiny.
Historically, our nation has not had numerical limits on immigration for a large part of its history, but during those times there were essentially no ongoing government benefit programs. At this time the political character of our nation is such that it is very unlikely that the public would support no government benefits at all for immigrants, or other options such as increased taxes for immigrants, or very stringent earnings and/or wealth requirements, that would limit the inflow of immigrants without actual numerical quotas. So at this time quotas seem necessary. In general I think raising the requirements for immigrants is a better approach than quotas if possible.
There is no necessary reason that individuals granted visas to enter our nation to work have to be granted any path to citizenship (or any particular government benefits), although they should not necessarily be forbidden to seek citizenship. It would benefit our country to have less micro-management of the visa process for individuals coming to our nation to work, and to streamline that process and make it more widely available. Right now we have separate categories for fashion models, athletes, scientists, etc. with way more red tape than is necessary. A simple process to admit individuals to our country to work, without eligibility for any government benefits, but with comprehensive security checks would be a good idea. This however does not imply I would support unlimited numbers of this type of visa.
I do not think it is advisable that the children of non-citizens born in our country be automatically granted citizenship, or that non-citizens present in our country are offered any more than some minimum set of government services, akin to what most countries offer to non-citizens. For example, just about every civilized nation provides emergency services to citizens and non-citizens alike -- if you get hit by a car crossing the street in Korea they'll get you to a hospital whether or not you are a citizen. But paying for the bill is up to you, not the country you are visiting. We should do the same thing here.
Summary -- illegal immigration must be stopped, our border secured, and the immigration laws enforced. Legal immigration, whether for individuals coming to our nation to work or invest in businesses for a period of time, or for people who desire to become productive, patriotic Americans is a good thing. But non-citizens in our country should not expect nor receive the benefits citizens do.
I could never understand why people lose their sense humor when implying they, or those they support are Nazis.
:o
I seem to have forgotten when or where I might have implied that anybody was a Nazi.
Could you please point that out for me?
Thanks.
Howard Dean aborted thousands of babies?
?
Oil. A border with Iraq. Wahabi fundamentalisms home country. Access to the Persian Gulf and it's sea lanes. Influence over OPEC and its decisions. Very large aerospace arms sales. Aircraft and naval repair facilities.I am tempted to make fun of you Stuttgart.
Hi Allegra...
I’ve been trying to read up on this thread, coming in late to the “party”.
That joke about the Paul relatives falling from guard towers in Nazi Concentration Camps, the one you pinged wideawake to and mentioned the words “sense of humor” about, MIGHT be what sparked someone to suggest that you implied Paul or his supporters were Nazis.
Not saying it was relevant at all to the post that was made to you afterward but maybe that’s where it originated in that poster’s mind.
Who knows?
It was kind of a difficult comment to parse, for me anyway. I’m not even sure it wasn’t jest in itself, not directed at you as calling anyone a Nazi, but I don’t know. I guess if the poster is a Paul supporter (and I don’t know if yes or no), that context might tell the tale. No?
How noisy or quiet has it been in your neighborhood lately??
After reading your post, I can only conclude that your not a Libertarian. In fact, I have no real disagreements with your positions. Although, I would add a few points.
There are other problems besides public acceptance for treating immigrants differently than natural born citizens. First and foremost, I doubt they would survive a legal challenge on equal protection grounds.
I agree, particularly in the light of the expansive view of the 14th amendment seen in recent Court decisions.
Some noise here earlier. Not as bumpy as recent days have been, but the day isnb't over yet, either. ;-)
I seem to have forgotten when or where I might have implied that anybody was a Nazi.
Oh come now. Do you see where I said "you" above? Obviously I didn't. I just threw out a sarcastic comment as you're well aware.
Fact is someone in #57 made a really dumb, dated comment, about the candidate having Nazi relatives. I guess this could pass as a joke in some circles. But in defense of Paul, he might be a lot of things, but he's not a Nazi nor does he have Nazi relatives.
I mean if someone would make jokes about that, they might as well imply or make jokes that he or his relatives are child molesters or mass murderers.
In #94 *you* say: "Someone makes what is obviously a joke and the RP fans demand that you source it. LOL"
So *you* clearly considered this a joke, and thought it was humorous someone would ask for a link.
To be honest, I didn't find the comment to be a joke or funny. The Nazi's did a lot of nasty stuff and killed a whole lot of good people, including my Dad's brother. And just so you're aware, I am not a big Paul supporter, but he does make some good points in my opinion. At this time, I personally like Hunter.
And to be clear, if someone wants to "go there" and make comments/jokes like that, directed towards candidates they don't like or support, well I can't do anything about it and wouldn't, as I fully believe in the 1st Amendment. But I can make comments of my own.
Then post to the person with whom you have the issue and leave me the hell alone.
Don't make the mistake other FReepers have made of thinking that I'm some soft target.
I used to laugh at you snotty tough guys; now I just find you tiresome.
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.