Posted on 01/04/2008 10:00:23 PM PST by captain anode
A controversial new anti-illegal-immigration ad by GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul has sent his libertarian supporters into high dudgeon, but it's getting rave reviews from border-security hawks, including some Homeland Security officials.st nations."Eastern
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
They say college campuses have become hotbeds of radicalization for terror groups, and a number of terrorists and terrorist suspects – including three of the 9/11 hijackers – have entered the U.S. on student visas.
Hunter has been sponsoring that since at least 1993
If he wasent such a nut I would support him.
Have to admit he is right.
Promises during election very seldom become reality after election.
He is a nut...BUT this is one of his sanest solutions.
i agree..a Duncan Hunter solution stolen by RP.
he is flip flopping more than Romney? What gives?
Well, its one idea I hope all the candidates steel.
Read Fred Thompson’s Full Immigration Plan
The United States is a nation of immigrants. Throughout our history, legal immigrants have brought energy, ideas, strength, and diversity to our country, our economy, and our culture. This must continue. But in the post-9/11 world, immigration is more of a national security issue. A government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, abrogates a fundamental responsibility. I am committed to:
* Securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws. Amnesty is not an option and the toleration of “sanctuary cities” must end.
* Reviewing our immigration laws and policies to ensure they advance our national interests.
* Uniting Americans by welcoming legal immigrants willing to learn English, assimilate into our communities, and become productive citizens.
More details at link.
http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Immigration.aspx
=He can propose all he wants, but the bums in Congress will never....
September 2006
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/129/immigration-reform-in-2006/
Another BIG thing for me is I am sick of Congress not making a Declaration of War when we go to war! That’s BS!
Hunter, Thompson, Tancredo, Paul, these guys are my heroes. One of these guys winning is great. This won’t be popular but to me, the other guys are like commercial grade music.
I like it.
Well no kidding? Bush has dumped tens of thousand of Muslims onto this country since 911. Not to mention he's made American citizenship all but pointless.
Consideration depends IMO on mostly their adaptation and contribution to our society and if they pay taxes.
If they have a baby, don’t do anything and never learn English, they are thrown back over the border.
Of course, that's NOT what the 14th Amendment actually says, nor has there ever been a truly on-point Supreme Court decision saying so.
The line you are repeating above is really little more than an urban myth, even if it is implemented as a matter of goverment policy. It has no solid basis in law.
Gotta get over the "If Ron Paul said it, it must be wrong" knee-jerk first.
So what, this just means he’s down to 99% douchebag. I’m sure every candidate has at least one issue right...
“So what, this just means he’s down to 99% douchebag.”
LOL! A bit harsh, but oh so accurate.
If this guy wasn’t so incredibly wrong on foreign policy and Iraq, he might be someone worth listening to.
The Elk vs. Wilkins decision was never actually overturned.
In the ten terms Paul has been in office, has he submitted such legislation?
In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). This issue MUST be fixed urgently.
I agree RP is right....but
Good for Ron Paul. This is red meat for me
Unfortunately Dr Ron lost in Iowa and this statement looks like a 75 year old guy who signed off on a piece of paper shoved in front of his face. It shows someone in his campaign is thinking even if isn’t Dr Ron
I know your type. You wouldn't vote for a nut like Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson either. You feel safer with the creeping socialists who promise that, if elected, they'll make sure and send the country to a fiscal hell in a handbasket with babysteps instead.
All you need is a decent Supreme Court to get rid of the 14th anchor baby interpretation. Forget the legal minutia. All you need is good judges and they’ll make a good ruling
IOW no Constitutional Amendment or alteration needed. It would be great if a good case has been filed and is working its way through the courts
That, to me at least, seems far more relevant.
ROFL, sure bud, what every you say....
Iraq is winding down. They are rebuilding. I hope it will be moot soon. Don’t you? Afghanistan is another story. I don’t want to attack Iran unless congress declares war. We have to be united on this. It has to be clearly necessary. It has to be a just war.
Something that has always bothered me is congress not declaring war when we go to war. If the president can’t talk the congress into declaring war we should not do it. That’s the protection of the constitution. If the congress just votes to let the president do what he decides, that means we do not have the resolve to do it right. It’s not just getting your way, the process is important for unity.
This is different than the president making a split second decision because a missile is launched at us. Ron Paul makes sense on this.
by Ron Paul, Dr. January 7, 2002
January 7, 2002
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.
I could support Ron Paul on many issues, however when he was asked by Jan Mickelson on WHO radio (1040 AM Des Moines IA) on the day of the Iowa Caucus this question:
“If a ship carrying nuclear missiles from North Korea to Iran was discovered, what would you do?” Paul’s answer: “Nothing”.
That’s why I could never support Paul. He is a dangerous fool when it comes to foreign policy.
If not, why not? I just hope I don't become disillusioned and disgusted by our political employees/leaders.
Sanctuary cities could be stopped tomorrow if we had people with stones enough to pull all Federal funding from any city not complying with and enforcing immigration laws.
I agree with you completely. Republicans should be embracing the libertarian domestic agenda instead of being the “Me-too” party of Big Government. The libertarian vote cost the Republicans the Senate by margins in two states: Missouri and Montana.
This anchor baby issue I agree with wholeheartedly. The fact that a child is born in the US of illegal immigrants should not give that child automatic US citizenship. It is simply a judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment that caused this to become the law of the land.
Absolutely.
“If a ship carrying nuclear missiles from North Korea to Iran was discovered, what would you do?” Paul’s answer: “Nothing”.
“That’s why I could never support Paul. He is a dangerous fool when it comes to foreign policy.”
You are the president how would you handle it? As for dangerous fools, we have both doubtless voted for them before.
:)
The majority in Wong were really at sea, and in their desire to craft a decision giving them the desired result, i.e. citizenship for Wong, they WAAAY overstepped their bounds. They could have achieved the desired result by emphasizing the legal status of Wong's parents in the United States, which while admittedly short of full citizenship, was still a status that was indeed legal, and subjected them to the full jurisdiction of the United States.
I am certain that even the majority in Wang would never have contenanced a situation where citizenship was granted to whosoever happened to birth out on our shores. But then... even to reach the concclusion that they reached they had to ignore (and did so brazenly) the express legislative intent. Moreso, they had to ignore recent Supreme Court precedent (the slaughterhouse cases, i.e. Elk). The court failed to address these precedents, they just ignored them. Wong is another example of the axiom that hard cases make bad law.
“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.”
But Ron Paul wouldn’t be at war with any nation, he dosen’t believe it’s ever necessary, and Ron Paul doesn’t believe in terrorists. Ron Paul thinks radical islam is the fault of the US and that it will just go away if we withdraw.
So Ron Paul would admit everyone.
“If this guy wasn’t so incredibly wrong on foreign policy and Iraq, he might be someone worth listening to.” - Azzurri
The bashing of RP on here can be a little extreme, esp when real conservatives can find a lot of agreement w RP on many issues. His foreign policy statements are a real concern
No more ‘anchor babies’
I agree!
Huh?
How is this a flip-flop when he's been fighting illegal immigration for years!?!
For example...
Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.He's been strong on the border itself, too...
--Rep. Ron Paul
We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.I wonder why people keep distorting his positions on things (not implying you are doing so, bluebeak, but those who are spreading rumors). I think that when they can't fight conservative ideals like smaller government, etc., they have to resort to ad hominem smears like calling him names and twisting his views.
--Rep. Ron Paul
Exactly. That's one of the big things I find SO refreshing about Ron Paul. From what I see, he follows through on his promises and doesn't seem to adjust his views based on what he thinks is popular (e.g., even while going for the GOP nomination, he's sticking by his beliefs in the Constitution and pulling out of Iraq, etc.
Every day, I get more and more convinced he is the candidate to get my vote, though I would strongly support Duncan Hunter and possibly Fred Thompson.
Got any real arguments, or just the misrepresentations and ad hominem attacks?
I keep wondering when the anti-Paul fanatics will provide some honest and substantive criticism. It seems the one fair and concrete criticism is merely a potential difference of opinion--whether $10,000 per American family (of taxpayers' money) for Iraq could have been better spent by those Americans themselves, or used for stronger border security, infrastructure rebuilding here in the US, etc.
Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.
--Rep. Ron Paul
I think the naïveté is somewhate exaggerated when we look at the points he makes, but he sure doesn't take any pains to present them in a favorable light. For example, I do tend to agree with him that if we were less involved in the Middle East, Israel would take off the gloves a bit more and deal with some of the problems in the region. I also agree that it's crazy that we give more foreign aid to Arab countries than to Israel.
The bashing of RP on here can be a little extreme, esp when real conservatives can find a lot of agreement w RP on many issues. His foreign policy statements are a real concern
I fear there are few conservatives on FR these days, my FRiend. The Founding Fathers would be drummed out of here almost as quickly as they would at DU. :-(
You are the president how would you handle it? ....... captain anode
They have no problem with an illegal set of parents going back to their country with their USA kid though, they aren’t going to prevent them from doing that at all.
He might see the problem but how he would get that body of law based on the XIVth Amend overturned he is not at all clear about.
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.