Ron Paul's amnesty with an asterisk

I am not a libertarian in part because libertarians are so fixated on "let the market decide" and so against anything that looks like a tariff that they are practically internationalists.

The libertarian argument about outsourcing seems to be that if companies can make it cheaper elsewhere, then let them.

Likewise with illegal immigration; basically, a company's sole obligation is to maximize profit and who is a big evil state to tell them what ethics should look like.

All those pretty thoughts are wonderful as long as you are a wealthy educated white male.

Their stance that prostitution should be legal makes sense if you are a white educated male with a car. But if you are an under-age female immigrant with no family and no job skills, you're going to end up being a bitch for some pimp. But that's ok, because Ron can't imagine what that would be like....

I like libertarians; I agree with many of their views. But the fact that they substitute money for ethics makes them people I cannot personally support.

Even though John Stossel is way more entertaining that Jon Stewart.

Here is Pauls position on the issue from wiki:

en.wikipedia.org...

The guy even wants to end birtright citizenship, something I do support wholeheartedly.

Well that is good to know then, perhaps for the next thread you make, it would help if you cleared up your intentions? Or maybe just make a single thread stating that you want to neutrally and deeply analyze Ron Paul's views various issues because i think creating threads in a hurried fashion, based on dubious sources, makes you look like an anti Ron Paul fanatic.

That was supposed to be a reply to kro32 last post directed at me...

reply to post by Maslo


I'm with you on ending birthright citizenship.

But I honestly cannot tell what his views are on illegal immigration. the wikipedia article says he voted for the border fence only because he was against amnesty, and not because he wanted the fence itself.

What does that mean? It sounds like he wants open borders, and to decriminalize illegal immigration, but doesn't want to lose popularity by saying so in an election race.

If I'm wrong about that, let me know. Seriously.

I have to admit one thing about Ron Paul. I love the way he answers questions. This is from an immigration debate you can read here for a further look on his stance.

www.ontheissues.org...

Here is the answer I like.

Q: You say you’re a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be US citizens.

A: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What’s the contradiction there?

reply to post by kro32


thanks for the link.

I have to disagree with Ron Paul when he says that illegal immigration is primarily an economic issue. I believe it is a law enforcement issue, and a patriotic (national identity) issue.

It CANNOT be solved solely by economics.

In the Dallas, TX area, construction jobs before the crash were paying 20 dollars an hour. A lot of anglos were willing to do that work for that price. But you couldn't get a job if you were white or african american. The supervisors were all legal-worker hispanics, and the would "hold" the job for illegals. "Holding" meant that the illegal owed them $8 in cash, for working the job.

So the employer WAS paying a competitive wage that Americans were willing to take. But the jobs were only available to illegals, who were willing to participate in organized crime for their job. It is exactly the way the Italian and Irish mobs ran new york, a century ago.

How would economics address this? A cynic like me would say that it already has...... because it doesn't pay to go against the mafia.

If you think I'm lying, show me an anglo or black construction worker in Texas.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Wowbagger

 

How is this thread bashing Ron Paul. It's simply bringing attention to some statements made by a former colleague of his. Doesn't require more research than the content shown..

I agree. This thread is not bashing him at all, quite the contrary. Any candidate that tries to pretend they can solve this crisis without some form of amnesty is entirely diluted and out of touch. Ron Paul (as usual) has some pretty straightforward and simplistic ideas for fixing the problem.

I think this is one more testament as to the effectability of this guy as a president. If he approaches everything as a president in this manner, the country will see a lot of improvement in 4 short years!

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Wowbagger

 

I am the only one on this site I know of that is looking at Ron Paul without blinders on and looking into possible negatives of him being President. This site is becoming overwhelmed with blind support for Paul and the hysteria for this man is reaching epic proportions.

I will fight the lonely fight for truth while the others bury their head in the sand and in the end I will probably vote for Ron Paul myself however I will do it knowing the complete picture of what he is and not out of blind devotion for an idea.

I can appreciate the way you are attempting to look into Ron Paul. There is nothing wrong with investigating a Candidate for President. Many people do not, and they should. That being said, you are fairly new here on ATS and a bit behind the curve. It seems to me that the people you are calling "blind followers" are people who have been here for years, who have done their research, and who know exactly who this Candidate is. What you call "Blind Support" for Ron Paul is far from blind. Many people really became exposed to Ron Paul through the previous elections. Many people heard Ron Paul's message and the reason support for Ron Paul is "reaching epic proportions" is because everything he said when he was running for President concerning Liberty, The Economy, Wars, and our Foreign Policy was right on the money. So those new supporters who paid attention found out the one thing that no one can take away.... Ron Paul was right.

I think the reason you are getting so much flak from some members here is because what you have done is literally regurgitate that same rhetoric that was tossed around in the previous election cycle as a way to discredit Paul. Which a lot of us here on ATS have "been there- done that". We have seen this before, so we are aware of what it is we are seeing.

I liked your idea of making a list of "credible" sites, but the thing is, nothing is truly credible. You have to really look into the source for yourself and decide for yourself. As far as WND goes, they have lost a lot of credibility mainly due to hoaxes they have promoted as fact which came from Sorcha Falls or whatever that nuts name is. You can find plenty of info on WND and Sorcha by peeking into the ATS Hoax section. It is now policy on ATS that anything written by Sorcha Falls automatically goes into the HOAX section. Granted your link was not anything from Sorcha Falls, but it comes from the same site that promotes her insanity as fact.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft

I am not a libertarian in part because libertarians are so fixated on "let the market decide" and so against anything that looks like a tariff that they are practically internationalists.

LOL.

The libertarian argument about outsourcing seems to be that if companies can make it cheaper elsewhere, then let them.

Why stop them? When foreign companies want to outsource job to the U.S do we try to stop them? When foreign investors want to invest in the U.S do we ever try to stop them?

Likewise with illegal immigration; basically, a company's sole obligation is to maximize profit and who is a big evil state to tell them what ethics should look like.

Basically you're saying only U.S citizens should be able to get a job. Everyone else that happens to live in the U.S should just be poor and homeless?

All those pretty thoughts are wonderful as long as you are a wealthy educated white male.

What a dumb comment.

Their stance that prostitution should be legal makes sense if you are a white educated male with a car. But if you are an under-age female immigrant with no family and no job skills, you're going to end up being a bitch for some pimp. But that's ok, because Ron can't imagine what that would be like....

You previously stated that immigrants shouldn't be able to get a job, you really make no sense. No one wants people to prostitute but, the fact is it happens, countries that actually address their problems rather than just trowing people in prison seem to handle those problems a lot better than we do.

I like libertarians; I agree with many of their views. But the fact that they substitute money for ethics makes them people I cannot personally support.

No.

There is no such thing as immigrants and citizens it's all a mass delusion, open borders is my suggestion.

After several months of reading a variety of posts from the OP, I've come to disregard absolutely everything he/she says. He/she just reminds me of that thread that was in the new topics a few days ago labelled "I used to get paid to be a internet troll".

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


Do you also leave the door on your house always open, and let strangers and homeless live inside your house if they want?

You cannot stop people from leaving the country without infringing on their rights, but there is nothing in libertarianism or natural rights that says stopping others from entering your country is wrong. Just like you cannot stop people from leaving your land/house, but you have a right to stop them from entering your land if you dont want them to. Country-house analogy.

So you essentialy say:

There is no such thing as trespassers and land owners, it's all a mass delusion, open doors is my suggestion.

reply to post by Maslo

Do you also leave the door on your house always open, and let strangers and homeless live inside your house if they want?

Well, that's completely different. My home is my property. The U.S govt has no legitimate claim to the territory it deems the United States.

You cannot stop people from leaving the country without infringing on their rights, but there is nothing in libertarianism or natural rights that says stopping others from entering your country is wrong.

``Your country``? What does that mean? How is the U.S my country? I don't own the U.S.

like you cannot stop people from leaving your land/house, but you have a right to stop them from entering your land if you dont want them to. Country-house analogy.

Horrible analogy, my home is my property -- a country is just imaginary.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint

The U.S govt has no legitimate claim to the territory it deems the United States.

Of course it has, when you are libertarian (and not an anarchist). When U.S. govt represents the opinion of the majority, it has a legitimate claim and a right to enforce any country entry rules the majority opinion wants.

Even when you are an anarchist there is nothing which says majority of "shareholders" cannot agree to not grant foreign people entry privilege to their commonly owned (now public) land. It just means they cannot stop you from harboring illegal immigrants on your private property if you want (easement right).

Horrible analogy, my home is my property -- a country is just imaginary.

A land either belongs to one person (private land), or all shareholders of a company owning public land (now called the government). In both cases the owners or shareholders can decide to restrict access.
There is no dry land that belongs to noone in this day and age.

reply to post by Maslo


Not to mention, if the government has no claim to the property then neither does the individual. It becomes less civilized and more survival of the fittest (or boldest).

How can one person declare they have private property rights, and at the same time claim the government that helps them protect those rights, has no rights of its own?

reply to post by Maslo

Of course it has, when you are libertarian (and not an anarchist). When U.S. govt represents the opinion of the majority, it has a legitimate claim and a right to enforce any country entry rules the majority opinion wants.

No it doesn't. The govt has no right whatsoever to restrict freedom of movement.

Even when you are an anarchist there is nothing which says majority of "shareholders" cannot agree to not grant foreign people entry privilege to their commonly owned (now public) land. It just means they cannot stop you from harboring illegal immigrants on your private property if you want (easement right).

I'm not a Communist.

A land either belongs to one person (private land), or all shareholders of a company owning public land (now called the government). In both cases the owners or shareholders can decide to restrict access. There is no dry land that belongs to noone in this day and age.

You're speaking gibberish. How can a govt own land? To be the owner of property you must either trade for it or receive it as a gift. The U.S definitely didn't buy this territory and no one gave this land to it. How did it acquire this land?

OP... Honestly man... you couldn't have picked a worse source if you tried...

I mean you might as well have picked weekly world news...

How is bat boy these days?

reply to post by getreadyalready

Not to mention, if the government has no claim to the property then neither does the individual. It becomes less civilized and more survival of the fittest (or boldest).

Please tell me, how can a govt own land?

How can one person declare they have private property rights, and at the same time claim the government that helps them protect those rights, has no rights of its own?

What a unintelligent statement. The govt is the biggest threat to private property rights. If property rights were actually enforced in the first place the govt itself could not exist.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
You're speaking gibberish. How can a govt own land? To be the owner of property you must either trade for it or receive it as a gift. The U.S definitely didn't buy this territory and no one gave this land to it. How did it acquire this land?

Mmm. Gadsden purchase, Louisiana Purchase, Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Treaty of Paris. Treaty with various Native American Tribes.

So, the native americans didn't own it either. That means it was lost or abandoned property...x

Heh. It's the political dimension of "The Secret." If we disbelieve, the illusion will fade?


Rock dis jointed currently lists mood as "Anti-american." that contextualizes everything he/she/it says. America is wrong, even when the poster isn't right.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft

Mmm. Gadsden purchase, Louisiana Purchase, Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Treaty of Paris. Treaty with various Native American Tribes.

What did it use to purchase that land? Tax money, therefore it's still illegitimate. The govt itself is illegitimate, that alone voids this ``the government can own land`` nonsense.

So, the native americans didn't own it either. That means it was lost or abandoned property...x

Nope. If land is unclaimed it can be acquired as property through homesteading, but since a govt can not homestead -- it simply can not own land no matter how you look at it. And what do you mean Native Americans didn't own any of this land? As I understand it they utilized a good portion of it.

Heh. It's the political dimension of "The Secret." If we disbelieve, the illusion will fade?

Yes, if enough people realize the the U.S govt, congress, the senate, etc are illegitimate and have no right to govern them. The illusion will disappear.

Rock dis jointed currently lists mood as "Anti-american." that contextualizes everything he/she/it says. America is wrong, even when the poster isn't right.

No. What have I said that isn't right?