Posted on 04/16/2002 10:15:59 PM PDT by johnreed
I'll accept that evaluation, if you'll accept that G.W. Bush is a slimy, oath-breaking violator of The Law and our constitutional rights.
Oops! Another correction: even if you do accept that G.W. Bush is a slimy, oath-breaking violator of The Law and our constitutional rights I will NOT accept that Ron Paul was guilty of "hypocrisy." Hypocrisy is someone who pretends to be something more respectable than they really are. For example, if G.W. Bush said, "Unlike Bill Clinton, I care about The Law."
Instead, Ron Paul was "guilty," as you wrote previously, of later actions that did not COMPLETELY match his earlier words. (And as I pointed out, it was his words that were flawed, not his actions. Numerical limits on immigration are NOT good laws, and should all be abolished.)
However, I am unconvinced that its membership base is sufficient to gain much traction with the old-guard, Lincoln-loving Republican Party in Texas or anywhere else. As much as I admire Ron Paul, not one Republican in a thousand has his understanding of the U.S. Consitution, let alone his single-minded determination to abide by its strictures. If there are ten in elected office, I'd like to see their names.
After 40 years of seeing the Republican Pary throw away any number of opportunities to stand up for this nation's founding principles of federalism and limited government, only to embrace policies and programs the Democrats sponsored but were unable to enact, it may be too late to reform it. The party has set itself on the course of going for the votes of the "broad middle" and that means outmoded concepts such as property rights and trial by jury will have to take a back seat.
"Excuse me, please, while I rearrange these deck chairs. No, ma'm, there's no need to be looking for a lifeboat. Everything is going along just swimmingly, pardon the pun. We'll be resuming our schedule in the salon just as soon as we lay down some non-slip flooring so you won't slide off the boat. Blame it on the Democrats! It was their iceberg!"
Closing your eyes to the facts won't make them go away.
"The vote in favor of the bill was a vote in favor of rewarding illegal aliens via a four-month reinstatement of Section 245(i). That is an expired immigration provision that allows illegal aliens with qualified relatives or employers in the U.S. to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to be allowed to stay in this country without fear of deportation until their turn arrives for a green card years, and even decades, later."
"Individuals who remain in the country after their visas have expired must be treated as lawbreakers. Remember, only U.S. citizens have the constitutional right to be on American soil; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. We should not tolerate lawless behavior or anti-American activities from guests in our country." -- Ron Paul, 1-7-02
It seems to be working for YOU, Roscoe! :-/
First of all, you have refused to acknowledge G.W. Bush's "hypocrisy" in taking an OATH ON A BIBLE to follow the Constitution, and then signing into law the blatantly unconstitutional CFR. Why won't you acknowledge that this is also "hypocrisy"? In fact, why won't you admit this is far more grievous "hypocrisy" than the "hyprocrisy" of which you accuse Ron Paul?
Why won't you also acknowledge that conservatives such as Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, Henry Hyde, and Christopher Cox voted with Ron Paul? Or how about the fact that G.W. Bush signed the bill into law? (These are rhetorical questions, of course. I know that the answers are that you dislike Ron Paul because he's a libertarian, while you'll do anything to avoid criticizing Bush.)
Finally, why didn't you print the entire text of Ron Paul's opinion piece? Is it because, if you did, people would recognize that Ron Paul's comments that you selectively quoted were ACTUALLY talking about people who come in on student visas, from countries that sponsor terrorism?
Since you don't have the honesty to post Ron Paul's entire opinion piece, I will:
SANE AND SENSIBLE IMMIGRATION POLICIES AFTER SEPTEMBER 11
The terrible events of September 11th brought the issue of immigration reform squarely into the public spotlight. Most of the terrorist hijackers involved in the attacks were in the country illegally, having gained entrance using student visas that had later expired. The INS now admits that potentially tens of millions of aliens in the country are unaccounted for, many having simply disappeared after passing through customs. This in turn leads to fears that numerous terrorist cells may be operating within the U.S. and plotting future acts of terror. No amount of military might used abroad does us much good if the American people are not safe in their own communities.
Immigration policy must now be considered a matter of national security. America has the same sovereign right to defend itself against enemies when the enemy attacks us from within. Common sense tells us that we currently should not be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists, or from nations with whom we are at war. There were many fine German-Americans in the U.S. during World War II, but we certainly did not allow open immigration from Germany until hostilities had ceased and loyalties could be determined. While we generally should welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. Legislation I introduced in the fall would restrict immigration, including the granting of heavily abused student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.
We also must do a better job keeping track of the noncitizens who already have been admitted to America. Individuals who remain in the country after their visas have expired must be treated as lawbreakers. Remember, only U.S. citizens have the constitutional right to be on American soil; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. We should not tolerate lawless behavior or anti-American activities from guests in our country.
It is far better to focus our efforts on immigration reform and ridding our country of suspected terrorists than to restrict the constitutional liberties of our own citizens. The fight against terrorism should be fought largely at our borders. Once potential terrorists are in the country, the task of finding and arresting them becomes much harder, and the calls for intrusive government monitoring of all of us become louder. If we do not want to move in the direction of a police state at home, we must prevent terrorists from entering the country in the first place.
Finally, meaningful immigration reform can only take place when we end the welfare state. No one has a right to immigrate to America and receive benefits paid for by taxpayers. When we eliminate welfare incentives, we insure that only those who truly seek America’s freedoms and opportunities will want to come here.
BTTT
But I DO care about who wins, and I think that hard-core libertarianism has too many contradictions to serve as an organizing principle for the US government.
However, if there was a way to drag the GOP 20 degrees in Ron Paul's direction, I'd be fine with it.
Two statist parties is one too many.
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.