This new Ron Paul ad is absolutely, outrageously, tragically wrong:
“No visas for students from ‘terrorist nations’�
Rarely has a more ignorant proposal been advanced – and it is made even worse by the fact that this is Ron Paul we’re talking about.
To begin with, it is odd, indeed, for a libertarian to be invoking the concept of collective guilt: is every citizen of these unnamed “terrorist nations†to be declared persona non grata on account of the actions of a minuscule number of their countrymen?
Secondly, just which nations is Rep. Paul talking about? Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia: two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was Egyptian and another one hailed from Lebanon. Is Paul seriously saying that we should deport the thousands from these countries studying in the US? And why stop there? Why allow anyone from these so-called “terrorist nations†entry into the US for any reason whatsoever – just to be on the safe side?
This is pandering to the worst, Tom Tancredo-esque paranoia and outright ignorance (or do I repeat myself?) and is not worthy of Dr. Paul. I have the utmost respect for the candidate, but in using this unfortunate term, “terrorist nations,†the Good Doctor undermines his non-interventionist foreign policy stance. If these are, in truth, “terrorist nations†– which most will take to mean all predominantly Muslim nations — then why not invade them, kill the terrorists, and be done with it? This phraseology gives the War Party carte blanche – and, believe you me, they’ll use it.
As Murray Rothbard explained, the anti-interventionist conservatives of the 1950s made the same mistake when they jumped on Joe McCarthy’s bandwagon. The “red scare†was payback for the “brown scare†of the 1940s in which prominent conservatives were basically run out of public life on a rail for not getting with the program until Pearl Harbor. The original McCarthyite movement was directed against domestic reds, and was a sweet revenge for those conservatives who had been targeted as “subversive†and even “pro-Hitler†for being anti-interventionist during the Roosevelt era. However, it wasn’t long before the domestic witch-hunt spilled over the border and became an international armed crusade that roped us into NATO, lured us into Korea, and got us bogged down in Vietnam.
Thousands of students from the Middle East, North Africa, and the Muslim countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, and elsewhere come to this country and bring home with them the ideas of liberty, tolerance, and fair play that are the predominant themes of our culture. Barring them would be politically foolish, economically counterproductive, and a prelude to much worse.
It saddens me to write this, and yet I cannot be silent in the face of such a brazenly ugly attempt to cash in on barely disguised anti-Muslim sentiment, especially since his proposal would penalize large numbers of perfectly innocent people, young people whose only “crime†is to want to come to America. The Paul campaign should scrap the ad, pronto.
UPDATE: Well, we certainly have gotten our share of comments: this blog entry was posted a mere two hours ago, and we already have 150 comments.
I want to state for the record that I am not: a) accusing Ron Paul of racism, b) arguing with his stand against illegal immigration, or c) arguing in favor of open borders.
What I am saying is that a blanket ban on visas for students from unspecified “terrorist nations†is pandering to the worst, lowest instincts of the American electorate – and, as Tom Tancredo’s pathetic failure of a campaign demonstrated, it isn’t good politics, either.
This is about allowing legal immigration – and, specifically, of a type that benefits us in many ways, economically and in terms of the good will generated throughout the world at a time when we sorely need it. No one objects to vetting each and every visa applicant: a blanket ban, however, is quite a different matter, for all the reasons detailed above.
Ah, libertarian politics at it’s worst…implodes every time. Agree 98%, and nit-pick the other 2%. Make mountains out of molehills, make each small misstep, mistake, or poor edit a federal case, and a reason to abandon the cause.
Nice going people. Perhaps Hillary is what we really want?
Come on Justin, doesn’t this all sound familiar?
And oh yes, the MSM has fertilized and prepped the ground for this issue, just waiting for the mushrooms to sprout.
Is Assrael included as a Terrorist nation?
John
I agree, this ad was horrible. I do not actually believe Ron truly endorses any of that outrageous muck in the ad clip. He is way to smart for any of that racist and alarmist nonsense.
He is most likely going for the bottom of the barrel, red-neck, popularist, pond-scum, type of voter. Unfortunately, there are millions upon millions of these type social cretins, and their votes are necessary to win an election. Yes, this ad was for the pick-up driving, barely H.S. educated, gun-rack in the back, type people.
The part I found most disturbing, is his desire to cancel the “birth citizenship” right of babies born in the US. This comes directly out of the U.S. Constitution. Funny that such a strong “constitutionalist” such as Paul is keen on taking away the rights of babies born here, which are clearly given in that document. And he is running on a platform of- “getting government back to the Constitution?” Strange indeed.
Um, learn your history please. thanks.
Huh? Isn’t the 14th amendment part of the U.S. Constitution? Hasn’t birth citizenship been an important part of English common law for quite some time now?
Here's the relevant part of the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND
SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States…"
The emphasized clause was to ensure that children born on American soil to ambassadors, tourists, invading soldiers, shipwrecked families on the way to Canada, and other visitors were not automatically to become citizens. Chris S. is right on the money.
I’m a huge Ron Paul fan, I think the no visas for students from “Terrorist” nation is a little bit far, but I have to agree with everything else.
And BTW Ron Paul has never advocated deporting illegals, he has said over and over again that rounding up 20 million people would be impossible and he has never said he would do it. Unlike the other candidates Ron Paul is honest and he has not changed his stance on that isssue.
I’m astounded at the number of people that are offended by such a little thing as denying a small number of people visas but are in favor of spending untold amounts of money to bomb these same countries to the ground.
PS – Saying this is anti-Muslim propoganda is akin to saying all Muslims are terrorists, that is shameful.
“PS – Saying this is anti-Muslim propoganda is akin to saying all Muslims are terrorists, that is shameful.”
No, not all Muslims are terrorsts. But most terrorists are Muslim.
Justin, you are so totally out to lunch in your diatribe against this totally correct ad by Ron Paul that it makes me wonder if you can add 2+2 and get 4. The biggest issue facing the US is the invasion by foreign illegals – particularly here in California. All illegal aliens in the US should be rounded up at schools, churches, hospitals, public areas and arrested and deported immediately. Our military and national guards should be stationed effectively along the entire border with Mexico and given the authority to put an absolutely stop to illegal crossings by the criminal invaders. We need to look back at Operation Wetback and reimplement is provisions without delay. Ron Paul is quite clear in this ad that he will secure our borders. Why on earth would you object to such an obvious and absolutely necessary set of policies?
Free markets (in “land, capital and labor”) are at the core of the Libertarian agenda.
The Libertarians are restraining themselves here – but their gut response to middle Americans concerned about globalized competition is “stop complaining and get a new job”.
The Libertarians are using the Irag war and the RP campaign to build a movement to end Social Security. They are indifferent whether millions of elderly are thrown to the streets.
The core of the paleocon agenda is to fight “world government” with the power of the US (and where necessary to fight Federal power with the power of the states).
The paleocon supporters are too fearful to fight their downward spiral with unions, so they have instead looked to Birchers and other dinosaurs who promise a revitalization based on “being American” or “being a Southerner” or “being white”.
These two agendas have nothing in common except for their mutual idiocy.
Pandering? He’s been saying the same thing since 2001:
“Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.”
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=222
Uh any inconsistency?
Ron Paul begins to show his true colors. Notice how all the images they use in the ad are of Mexicans and then it’s all ‘No more student visas from terrorist nations’. This is pandering at it’s worst and if Ron Paul approves that message then he’s just as bad as the ad.
The right to a nationality is a fundamental human right.
This “no birthright” slippery slope ends up with citizens being exiled for political reasons, made stateless. The Hell with that.
Tony Hollick, England
I agree. It is a human right.
Many immigrants are being indefinitely detained down here in Florida because they have no country that will take them back once they get caught by ICE and are found to be removable; they are essentially stateless folks though most were born within fixed political borders. Is the U.S. going to start doing this to people born here because of an individual’s family background? Will immigration courts in the future start adjudicating someone’s deceased parent’s former legal status to determine if the child is in fact a citizen twenty years down the road? Sounds like a recipe for chaos but will probably great for the immigration lawyers. In FL there are many stateless people being detained who were born to Haitian parents in the Bahamas. There is no birthright citizenship in the Bahamas automatically. In Haiti, there is, but if you are born outside of Haiti to Haitian parents, no right to Haitian citizenship automatically exists. Some people end up losing out on citizenship in this scenario. Many poor Haitians flee to the Bahamas looking for a better life. Then, they have children in the Bahamas who have no immigration status if people don’t follow strict rules. So when the children come to the U.S., some get into trouble with the law, and they end up being detained indefinitely after they are found removable because they aren’t citizens of anywhere. Where is the U.S. going to send them? Many have to file habeas petitions to be let out of detention because neither Haiti nor Bahamas will take them back. Will this happen in the future to people born in the U.S. when they get stuck in detention in some far away land without a nationality? There probably won’t be such a thing as habeas like there is in the U.S. to let them out. Everyone should have a nationality. The US should not be like the Bahamas and construct its citizenship laws to exclude the children of immigrants from having a nationlity.
These are the relevant Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which preceded their adoption by the United Nations General Assembly.
As Alexander Solzhenitsyn writes so movingly in “One Word of Truth”, his Nobel Prize address, they should have been made conditions of membership for UN States. The world would be a very different place.
Regards, and a Happy New Year,
Tony Hollick, England
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the
country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
———— * * * * * ————
You are stating there are human rights prior to (or at least on par with) the free flow of labor. Very good.
And just as there are human rights prior to (or at least on par with) the free flow of labor, there are human rights prior to (or at least on par with) the free flow of capital.
http://www.STARGATE.uk.net/nobel.txt
BBC Russian Service translation of Solzhenitsyn’s Address.
Brilliantly written — one to keep
Regards,
Tony
This article also begs the question- Just what are the “terrorist” countries? Iran? Syria? North Korea?
I seriously doubt we have many(if any) foreign students from the above countries. If we do, the CIA is spying on them 24 x 7, so it really does not bother me anyway.
Is this a big issue? I think not-
I think Ron Paul is clearly the best candidate and I have tons of respect for the man. But this does not shield him, from me speaking out when he does something stupid. To be fair, many of these type ads are produced by staffers and such, I’m not sure how much of a direct hand that Ron might have played in producing and airing it. he could have approved it while he was half asleep or something.
Those working for the Paul campaign, know this kind of anti-foreigner stuff, makes for easy votes from the millions and millions of “joe-six-pack” type voters who salivate on this racist/alarmist nonsense.
BTW, I am for a strong border defense, including fences and increased border patrol, just not this type of sensationalism.
Ron Paul is absolutely right in what he said in his ad. Justin and some of these other people here are going to have to face up to a few hard realities that they have hitherto been in denial. They are caught in the trap of giving in to the mandatory requirement of paying lip service to the pc overlords who have already wrecked havoc in this country with their social experimentation and forced 3rd world immigration. America’s strength and greatness come from many years of very limited immigration and primarily only allowing people from western European Christian nations. While the people came from different countries, they shared several things in common that are critical in forming a society that will succeed and not end up on the trash heap of 3rd world failures. Those things are:
1. Common culture – western, Caucasian culture
2. Religion – Basically Christian in one form or another
3. Law – Western cultures all share some form of the Biblical common law as the base of their justice systems.
4. Race – Ever notice that the people of the countries that the builders of our country came from, England, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Ireland, Holland, etc., are all – can I say it? …… ***white*** ….. whew!!! I feel better now that I said it – WHITE!!!
Now for those of your who are having an egalitarian meltdown over what I just said, you have a choice. You can rethink your pluralistic position or you can keep squawking about “racism, antisemitism, bigots”, etc. and as a result you will continue to see more violence, mayhem, division, Balkanization, crime, and loss of personal liberty. Its that simple.
Get a life and stop buying into the global elitists plan for a “brave new world.”
Dr. Paul was right – Ron Paul ’08
Excellent points by Rick Revere. If anyone doubts him go and read Federalist Paper Number Two by John Jay. The incontrovertible historical fact is that this country was never founded on ideas of “diversity” or “multi-culturalism.” That is a late 20th century liberal invention.
Oh and by the way, Happy Kwanza.
Ron Paul is in my estimation by far the least of the evils in the current presidential campaign, and given the opportunity I would vote for him. However he is not a libertarian, and has never been one despite his temporary importance to the Libertarian Party. I opposed his nomination then because he was what I called at the time a “real conservative” and is now called a paleoconservative, not a libertarian. He hasn’t changed his basic philosophy as far as I can tell.
The mistake here is your’s, Justin. You appear to have convinced yourself that Ron has changed, but Ron changing is not likely. I expect this sort of ad out of Ron & the people he is going to put in charge – it is completely in keeping with Ron’s positions and philosophy. You are outraged instead of merely in disagreement because you keep trying to see Ron through rose-colored glasses, as is obvious in your columns here at Anti-War and over at Taki’s. I don’t blame you, I wish we had a serious candidate who was a libertarian also. But that ain’t Ron. Doesn’t mean I won’t send him money and vote for him if I get the chance, but I don’t kid myself he’s something he isn’t.
Maybe we should have been more willing to believe in Russell.
The only thing disgraceful here is the article by Raimondo and some of these comments that Dr. Paul is inconsistent or a borderline racist. Wow… I agree with the guy, Paul Revere, in the above post, he hit the nail on the head about this third world integration. Its only been going on since the mid 60’s and look whats happened to the country during that time. It went from bad to worse.
Go Ron Paul!
Why does Raimundo focus exclusively on that one statement? Paul’s overall policy on illegal immigration and border security is more important. As for the “no more student visas” statement, I think that was made because the campaign wanted to semi-covertly criticize the current administration’s security failures without being seen as “going negative”, which I think is a mistake. Paul should openly draw contrasts between himself and the current administration, as well as with other candidates, and past administrations.
No visas for students from ‘terrorist nations’ eh? Silver lining = maybe it will apply to ‘Israeli art students’….
Nah….
Justin:
“Terrorist Nation”? Ah, yes. Those nations from which the terrorist come, that support the terrorists with money and equipment, and with shelter and prayers, and that promote the Islamic Jihad and the methods preached in the Koran and in Mohammad’s writings! Indeed they are our Enemy, the Leaders and the people of these Nations , not just bin Laden and his cohorts, and their squads of killers scattered through-out the non-Islamic world. We cannot win just by fighting these field forces, anymore than we couldn’t and didn’t win our grotesque war in Viet Nam. However, we can lose an awful lot more lives of our young people, and manage to have far, far more wounded.
Dr. Paul recognizes one way these enemy squads are getting into this country and would close that door by closing all illegal immigration. And as there’s no way that we can identify these enemy squads we have to close that door to everybody.
But, beyond closing that door we need to devise a strategy to take on the Leaders of these Enemy Nations, and quit granting them sanctuary by pretending that we are fighting only a few “extremists”. Unless we do these Nations will continue sending out their squads and, eventually, getting a few such squads into the U.S. with Nukes to take out hundreds of thousands of people in our cities!
Cheer Dr. Paul on in his lonely war. Don’t complain because he’s not afflicted with the same blindness that afflicts our present government, and that afflicts those others that are running for President. Somehow we’ve got to get things changed and to awaken them to the real dangers!
Jim Wright
“To begin with, it is odd, indeed, for a libertarian to be invoking the concept of collective guilt: is every citizen of these unnamed “terrorist nations†to be declared persona non grata on account of the actions of a minuscule number of their countrymen?”
You seem to think that foreigners have a RIGHT to come to America.
Living in America on a visa is a privilege, and many countries have much tougher visa requirements than the U.S.
Given the choice between tougher border restrictions and leaving other countries alone, or open borders while meddling in the affairs of other nations, I’d take tough borders andnon-intervention any day.
Here’s another Solzhenitsyn for you Tony:
“I must say that among educated people politics occupies far too great a proportion of time. All the periodicals, all the newspapers are saturated with politics, although many of the objects they are discussing are very transient and short term…In truth, questions of a higher spirit cannot even be compared to the sort of blinking frivolity of politics. The ultimate problems of life and death show up the colossal nature of this difference even more. Modern humankind is characterized precisely by this loss of the ability to answer the principal problems of life and death. People are prepared to stuff their heads with anything and to talk on any subject, but only to block off the contemplation of this subject. This is the reason for the increasing pettiness of our society, the concentration on the small and irrelevant. ”
–Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
Thank you.
I wonder how many of our readers could scan the following passage without cynical laughter. Yet once upon a time, there were men and women who believed it…
TEXT: In 1944, Nash-Kelvinator Corporation ran this magazine advertisement, showing a grim pilot, about to take on Zeroes at twelve o’clock, imagining this staccato message to his partner:-
“I want to tell you what I’m fighting for.. It’s you and our little house and the job I had before… and the chance I had, the fighting chance, to go ahead on my own. That’s what all of us want out here… to win this war… to get home… To go back to living our lives in a land — and a world — where *every* man is free to grow as great as he’s a mind to be… where *every* man has an *unlimited* opportunity to be useful to himself and his fellow men …
“Tell ’em we’ll be back… Nothing can stop us… And tell ’em no matter what they say, no matter what they do… to stay *free*… To keep America a land of *individual freedom*!
_That’s_ what we’re fighting for…
_That’s_ what we’re willing to die for…
_That’s_ the America we want when we come home.”
“We had better figure out what happened if we expect _any_ army, conscript or volunteer, even to _remember_ what it’s fighting for.”
– Michael Levin
In 1973, Henry Kissinger surrendered South Vietnam to the North. The South would fall after a “decent interval” (the title of Frank Snepp’s angry book on the subject).
In [1988], General Giap, Hanoi’s top general, wrote in his interesting autobiography that they were _amazed_ when Kissinger and Nixon surrendered, because they all thought that America was _winning_.
Before the recent Iraq war, General Dowling presented the Chiefs of Staff with a war plan whereby there would be extended airdrops of small arms etc. to the Iraqi people, followed by massive sequenced Coalition airstrikes against Saddam’s military State infrastructure. Special Forces insertion to support the anti-Saddam insurgency would result in the Iraqi people feeling that they had won their country back, with our assistance. We could then leave, except insofar as people wanted to trade and co-operate voluntarily.
The Joint Chiefs turned General Dowling’s proposal contemptuously. Our best hop now is that General David Petraeus can win hearts and minds (admittedly difficult, after the blunders of Sanchez and Bremer) and get us out in one piece without the roof falling in.
Happy New Year!
Tony Hollick
I support Ron Paul’s position on this issue. The only complaint that I have is that it does not go far enough. Those who have studied this issue, as I have, know that foreign students have virtually taken over American universities, especially at the graduate level. In some schools, they constitute a majority of the graduate students. Those students are thus allowed to acquire the wisdom and knowledge of our educational systems so that they can someday compete with Americans for jobs. And despite the claim by some foreign students that they are paying for their own U.S. education, the fact remains that most of the technical knowledge taught in U.S. schools was acquired by many years of American research and development, a significant portion of which was paid for government subsidies (i.e., American taxpayers). Why should Americans be forced to educate those from other nations who will someday take away their jobs? I therefore support Ron Paul’s position and wish to see it extended.
Who did this Ad ?!!! Pull it immediately!! Or you will lose my vote.
I’m glad Mr. Paul is taking a hard-line stance. Why do they want to come here? Is it not because we have focused on providing everyone a nice place to live?
It’s time to rethink our presentation and promise just a bit, and perhaps restore the original thinking. It’s time to concentrate on making it a “really nice place” for ‘us and our posterity’….uh, I think I read that somewhere….. and a “not-so-nice place” for those who are ‘proscribed’ from the above group….uh, I think I also read that somewhere.
Barry
Outrageous! How do you define “terrorist nation”? A nation made of terrorists?????
Should we be friendly to all nations and trade with them????
I think Mr. Paul’s problem is that he is running against a herd of women. He’s the only man in the race, and that makes for a very tenuous & emotional environment for debate as Mrs. Birbeck’s comment exemplifies. BTW, someone please remind her that although ‘we’ have consanguinity with her countrymen, the difference is that the voice of “justice” has a place to camp here.
Barry
http://www.ronpaul2008.com $20,000,000.00 donated by citizens who love their country in the 4th quarter of 2007.
Sad indeed. I've been getting more and more disillusioned with Ron Paul. He went from savior to barely supportable in a couple of months. If this trend continues I'm jumping ship and refraining from voting in the primaries and voting 3rd party in the general… again.
I think its a great ad. Most actual voters will agree with it, even if a few LP activists don’t.
Visas for students wont change no matter whos elected, just like abortion hasnt changed.. Bush was pro-life has abortion changed ? This blog is self-professed to be anti-war.. correct ?? NAME ANOTHER CANDIDATE WHOS TALKING ABOUT ENDING THE WAR NOW.. NAME ANOTHER CANDIDATE WHO WANTS TO BRING ALL OF OUR TROOPS HOME NOW…..NAME ANOTHER CANDIDATE WHOS SAYING WE CAN NO LONGER IMPOSE OUR WILL AROUND THE WORLD BY USE OF FORCE…NAME ANOTHER CANDIDATE WHOS SAYING OUR FOREIGN POLICY IS WRONG.. Hes the only man telling the truth in my opinion anyway… Im tird of all the lies lies lies, and the desecration of our CONSTITUTION… ” A country that gives up liberty for security will have neither ” Ben Franklin..
I agree with Justin, Ron Paul’s position on student visas was unfortunately not well thought out. But it probably won’t hurt him with the populist wing of Ron Paul supporters, many of whom are not ideologically libertarian. Still, a more moderate and measured proposal (e.g., more careful scrutiny of these students) would have been infinitely better.
It reminds me of proposals I’ve heard for banning immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, on the grounds that they’re going to out-populate us, as appears to be happening in parts of Europe. Even granting this questionable assertion, the idea is patently unfair. A lot of the people leaving Muslim countries are oppressed “dhimmis” such as Christians, Jews, and Bahais. Others may be “sexual refugees”, for example gays and lesbians who would face imprisonoment or even execution in their home countries. Or they may be nominally Muslim women escaping abusive arranged marriages. To refuse them would be like when the US turned back that ship of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, surely one of the most shameful episodes in our history.
And in Addition to my above post… i challenge any of you out there to tell me which of the supposed Presidential Candidates actually VOTED ” NO ” to the Iraq War right from the BEGINNING ?? I know of only one > Dr.Ron Paul..
Gino Madaio, all I can say is “ditto” “ditto” “ditto”. Well stated! And “ditto” again to your second post.
Barry
In light of RP’s Lincoln comment – why don’t we pay illegal aliens to leave? I’m certain there would be many takers.
And someone please tell me why RP isn’t for reparations for African-Americans? As slaves, weren’t their property righs denied?
Or compensation for Native Americans, whose property was stolen?
The ultimate logic of Paulnomics would be to bankrupt the country faster than you can say “free trade”.
…there is only one thing bigger than a very big thing, and that is a thing so very small that it can be seen and understood.
-Sinclair Lewis
You make a very small point.
I agree with Ron Paul on everything except the student visa issue. First, the rest. It took my family four years to fill out and file paperwork for entry to the US. It wasn’t until they started building the Berlin Wall through our dining room that the Red Cross responded and despite having family in Chicago (they had been there over 50 years) we couldn’t gain entry to the US. Luckily Canada took us in for 2 years while we lived in a tent. Finally we were given entry to the US to join our other family members. My father now owns a Fortune rated industrial company, my mother is an MD, my brother a banker and I teach in a nationally ranked MBA program. And yet, what asses we were! Who knew we could have flown to Mexico and then swam the rest of the way. If Mexican immigration laws weren’t event stricter than ours, it might have worked! The current policy of an open southern border is in and of itself racist. It barrs Africans, Europeans and Asians from coming here after a short swim. As for student Visas, I am not sure how you would determine which countries are terrorist since the terrorists stand of an “ism” and not a nation.
Illiana, I am glad that you are here!
This is also my biggest disagreement with Ron Paul, but I am supporting him, since he is far and away the best candidate. He remains the only noninterventionist. It is RonPaul or more of the same nonsense. And I’m not sure how much longer we can continue down this road of foreign intervention, rising debt, devaluing currency and so on.
Read Kim on 2007-12-30 10:21:52
In addition to crop land and aquifer depletion, there is the worldwide exhaustion of mineral resources. Of the major industrial metals, at the current rates of consumption only aluminum is predicted not to be exhausted in less than a hundred years (at economically accessible mining depths). The most versatile of all metals, silver is predicted to run out in about 25 years.
So the imperative to control population is not limited to First World countries needing to stop immigration dead in its tracks if we are to maintain any kind of a decent standard of living. The remaining 90% of the world’s population must somehow not just stop, but drastically reverse their growth – otherwise famine, plague, and wars will do it for them.
These consideration are the reason I do not worry about China.
Ron Paul supporters make a good point about Dr. Paul’s goal of law and order: agreed. It is also agreed that he is the best man for the job of all candidates. Even, so, again, people should give serious consideration before posting information, especially blanket information about nationals and cultures, without serious research. This includes the fine statesman Dr. Paul.
There is a constant blaming of young people from the Middle East for 9-11. This is not true. Anyone can find out that it is not true. Anyone can got to whatreallyhappened.com. There is an entire book on the subject, proving that the Saudis were purposely–and wrongly–blamed. Anyone can also see the real source of this horrible crime; so see all these videos. Regards to all. Also, doesn’t anyone know about Willaim Rodriguez, chief of maintenance, and all the firemen, who clearly speak of bombs and bombs blowing up and destroying systematically the building? And what of Professor Steven Jones, Bringham Young, who proved the use of thermite on the steel beams? 19 Muslims and bin Laden? Before blaming people: innocent until proven guilty? A million US dollars for anyone who can prove me wrong.
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyot_fRI1VM
http://watch?v=q901QnWmF44&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/user/mahdiarmy
Major Alert:
See this newstory; CNN admits that ABC and FOX are both blocking Dr. Paul. There is some disinformation on the internet otherwise. Please get this out to everyone. Everyone should support him on this, no matter what.
Here is the link to CNN: it is their report…
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/debate.limits.ap/
Ron Paul is the only candidate worth voting for.
As far as the immigration ad controversy is concerned, here is a Chinese proverb that I came across which sums up my view:
“Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without one.” :D
Mr. Scott;
You are correct. All focus should be on issues such as this: the total boycott of Dr. Paul by the media. This is a must-see, how Fox News misled even the LA Times columnnist, throwing the blame on the GOP. With Fox Now caught in their lies see the GOP’s response:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/should-ron-paul.html
Are there any lawyers out there? Fox is corrupt. The black-out alone is good reason to throw everyone’s weight, even those dissappointed with this ad, behind him.
khaleel,
I totally agree with you about Fox News. Thanks for the L.A. Times link. I’ll pass it on to others.
…there is only one thing bigger than a very big thing, and that is a thing so very small that it can be seen and understood.
-Sinclair Lewis
This very small thing is that Mr. Paul knows that he can’t win the nomination being the candidate that will lobby for the people. He must now whore himself to the rest of the Republican party. Everything that he supposedly is against.
He is no better or no worse than the others.
Anyone who thinks he can get the Republican nomination without pimping himself to the likes of the Mike Huckabee faithful, John McCain, Mitt Romney, “the Republican establishment” is simply blowing smoke and not being honest with themselves.
In no way am I in favor of the ill treatment Paul has been given by media and other Republicans, but the border is a complicated issue. If someone wants to live by the original Constitution, then get your asses to one of the original 13 colonies, and get ready for slavery again, not just wage slavery as we have now, but what so many of you will say is old history, none of your concern, not your fault, can’t do anything to help remedy the circumstances in which you were born, like to acknowledge what the rest of the world knows, Most of this land was stolen from the natives, including MEXico, which as many of you will know is actually much of our West, and if you don’t, sorry. Does Paul want women to be able to vote? Surely he does, so why go BACKward? It’s not that the forefathers were just a bunch of evil white guys, they were by the standards of their day very enlightened people, unlike so-called conSERvatives of today, but can any of you really read more than several pages of their writings without seeing how the world is changed to much to live exactly by the original Constitution? And I DON’T mean since the second 911 (the first being the US backed coup in Chile, 1973), I mean over the years the planet has become a smaller place due to runaway capitalism, not government. Believe me, I am no fan of any governments I can name, especially our federal government, or that of my state. However if we are to have governments they must do something, or why exist? And if they do things that prop up bad previous decisions of our government than why do we respect it at all? Paul seems sincere to me, however much I disagree with him on social spending, and immigration. I don’t hate him, or want to demonize him, but pardon me please for saying that the basic mindset of Americans is one tainted by underlying racism, and to deny it deepens the problem. The great border wall is racist, as is the border itself from the beginning. And how easy it is for us pale faces to ask for cops of one sort or another to target, QUESTION, detain, harass, BEAT and kill more dark skinned people, since none of us fit the profile, and I shouldn’t leave out some of the KLANlike black people I have heard make comments about so-called MEXicans (most of whom are actually mexicans, but this gets to complicated for the ignorant Americans… We have carefully been brainwashed into believing in the myth of this country, and will not want to go through the painful process of realizing what the “country” is built upon, and their own privilege. Paul’s views are those of a privileged person. If you are a so-called LEGAL person (I barf in Alabama, USA tonight) who LOOKS like an … ehemm – ILLegal person, you will be BOTHERED by police and other types of pigs in Fortress Amerika… This will create, and is in fact already creating an atmosphere of FEAR among all of us. The immigrants generally fight harder than we lazy Gringos, you’d think we’d want to make friends with such a people, who suffer due to OUR policies under the Bush/Clinton dynasty.
OK… I have gone on long enough, I cannot be concise. There is too much to say, and too many of you will just tune it out, because it’s hard.
jefff
Ehh, a better spell check would have been cool. And I forgot to mention my disagreement with Paul over the A Word, but it’s off topic, I just wish to complete my thought. Peace and justice to us all.
jefff
I’m a huge Ron Paul advocate, but I support the r3volution, not the man, this “terrorist nation” policy statement doesn’t mesh with his platform, it’s a huge mistake. It’s not listed on the issues page of his website about immigration. What happened?
My gut tells me the immigration issue is going to be used by power elites to divide us, but since when did Paul cater to power elites?
OK, now I’m starting to NOT like him.
Ron Paul quotes:
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
“”We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”
“”What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?”
“University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism.”
From Ron Paul’s self-published newsletter:
” Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That’s what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn’t ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.”
I believe that you fabricated this from whole cloth. There may be a few clips pulled from Dr. Paul, woven into the nonsense. Nice try, Rudy/Mitt/John/Mike whichever!
BTW, who do you claim that Ron Paul was “quoting” at the beginning of your comment?
Raimondo should just GO BACK TO ITALY if he has such a problem with “Hispanics”.
Just think Justin…ZERO Mexicans and/or Mexican-Americans back in Italy!!!
YOU WILL BE A HAPPY CAMPER!!!
Raimondo is just ANOTHER “conservative” who , speaking in euphemisms, likes to HATE on “Hispanics”.
He is so typical of “conservatives”.
HATRED of any and ALL things “Hispanic”…including Americans of such ancestry…is a STAPLE of “conservatism”.
Basically, they fear that “Hispanic” numbers will get so large…they will no longer be able to push us around! This fear justifies their vile HATRED towards ppl with MY ethnic appearance.
However…as they well realize…time is running out on the days when whitey was able to push us around…this realization only drives “conservatives” into a further fury!!!
Because they well realize…this will be the LAST gasp against “Hispanics” by conservatives….the next time this atavistic cycle returns…things are gonna be different…
Agreed… it was an ugly ad. A Tancredo pander-fest. Paul has written intelligently and fairly on the immigration issue in the context of both the welfare state and national security. It never has that “we’re being invaded”, my cousin’s going to blow himself up in a mall with an LLBean backpack feel. I think/hope that Paul had very little to do with the making of the ad, and I encouraged the campaign not to do more like it. You might too (http://www.ronpaul2008.com, contact us link is on the bottom right of the page)
I agree, the ad is fear-based. There’s no room for fear in a love revolution. The RP campaign needs to pull the ad and rework it in a positive light, emphasizing how RP will expand legal immigration so all immigrants will have the full protection of the law. And I don’t even know where the denial of visas to students from “terrorist nations” fits in. Boo on Ron Paul and the RP campaign for resorting to these scare tactics.
Who would have thought it, the anti-war left finally has gotten the pretext they need to unload on the good Doctor. And Justin, you of all people, initiated it. It is also possible that some of the commenters here are disrupters. Whatever.
And to think that the Paul was kind in his comments about their hero, Kucinich. It goes to prove one thing, no good deed ever goes unpunished.
I heartily agree that this Ad stinks, His position on immigration needs to address the positives of streamlining the process of legal immigration in my opinion, furthermore not rewarding despotic folks in the countries to the south of the US would further aid the people there and here I think.
There is a hearty level of disagreement and debate on the nature of sovereignty with regard to amnesty programs and the like that makes this sticky and difficult. I respect your criticism as usual. But overall, Ron’s still the best candidate.
Thanks for the writing as always.
Thank you, Justin, for your honesty and for not being afraid to say publicly how much this ad stinks. It is a very sad ad indeed for that stupid, vote-pandering, bullshit sentence of not allowing students “from terrorist nations”. I called the campaign today just to get more bullshit about “protecting America from terrorists”. I think this is a mistake – all the people I know, supporters from the first hour, are very disappointed. It’s sad, because the same line of argument can also be used to deny people their 2nd ammendment rights because of one Timothy McVeigh – and I thought this would be obvious to someone like Mr Paul.
So, yeah, support is down from strong to lukewarm.
ADD:
just saw reference to HR 488 and read it. Looks like Mr. Paul is fully in line with this, and my fault for not researching Mr. Paul more closely. Good luck to you, then, Mr Paul. Guess Harry Browne was right after all: either vote libertarian or don’t vote at all. Ah, I miss Harry.
Ron Paul: Bring troops home from Iraq Ron Paul says that it is not in American’s national interest to have troops in Iraq and they should be withdrawn immediately.
Well Stan, the least I can say is that you are right when you say white "immigrants" built Amerika…from exterminating the Indians, to killing black slaves en masse during the War for Southern Independence and then cynically using them as pawns during the Federal occupation of the south (the logical, though wholly unjustifiable reaction to which was a century of racist oppression against blacks from their white neighbors), to the wars of aggression against Inperial Spain and Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq (need I continue?), Anglo-Saxons are responsible for our present imperialist Federal monstrosity…H.L. Mencken was hilariously correct in pointing out the "hereditary cowardice" of the Anglo-Saxon, as both the British and American empires have been built by ganging up on weak, friendless nations…not to mention the Puritan sense of moral certitude which turns everything it sees into an apocalyptic crusade between God's annointed killers and the legions of hell (just listen to the corpulent Christo-fascist John Hagee discuss Iran sometime)…but before you complain about the present mores too much, Stan, remember who is REALLY responsible for our sad present state of affairs. (PS I don't believe in collective guilt — for Jews, Germans, or Americans — and I think other white people, as well as people of every race, have done great things for America)