Ron Paul’s Disgraceful Ad
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.
Galileo Galilei
December 29th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Many of the 9/11 terrorists were CIA dupes who came from Saudi Arabia on fast track student visas.
Cia Visas For Patsies – 9/11 Review
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/CiaVisasForPatsies.shtml
"Questions: Three hijackers obtained visas under an accelerated approval program, called Visa Express at travel agencies in Saudi Arabia. Visa Express had only been in … "
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
This is Ron Paul's clever way of addressing 9/11 Truth without being blasted as a conspiracy theorist.
Fred
December 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I don't think RP is saying they are not allowed here.They are, just not allowed to roam free on a visa.Students from countries that have been known to have terrorists should not be allowed visa and to roam freely.That ad is far from racist.Quit thinking allways with in the box and open your minds.
Mike
December 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
This video is a viral attempt to smear Ron Paul. Notice that the writer of the article forgets to tell us where it was aired.
Edward Roby
December 29th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
It is hard detect how a call for "secure borders" offends some libertarian principle. Unlike Israel, the United States has legally defined borders. The U.S. government just doesn't seem to agree that other countries — pick any target of our numerous foreign wars — should be also secure within their borders. Supposed we did bring our armies home from their soil, as Paul suggests, and then dedicated out $1 trillion-a-year national security budget to making the technically bankrupt United States secure within its own borders. What then would be the rationale for the Warfare-Welfare state from which a secure country engages in permanent warfare abroad? The real rationale could only arise from purely domestic U.S. politics, even if our rulers continue to invent new foreign enemies with mediagenic phrases like "terrorist states." Authentic conservatives — Cochoran, Beard, Barnes — have fingered domestic politics as the spawning ground for our foreign wars. Faux libertarians and government acolytes, who purport to know the foreign identities of those who allegedly perpetrated a big domestic terrorist crime, would then have to return to the concept of a real criminal investigation, real rules of evidence and maybe even rule of law in the United States. Maybe this is what Paul is getting at. Radical? Disgraceful?
James
December 29th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I whole heartedly agree. This kind of thing males Paul look like a racist. I certainly hope the campaign gets it together quick to pull the ad.
Michael in Cleveland
December 29th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Yea this is pretty stupid…I can only guess that its to play towards the social conservatives now controlling the Republican party, but to me, Ron does not need to play to those people as they will be pried apart from one boring candidate to another. I can only hope the Paul campaign sees how stupid this sort of tactic is. I sincerely hope he is our next president, but please keep these sort of ideas our of any presidency. I read that Huckabee considers keeping tabs on Pakistani’s in this country is a good thing, which is stupid. If that goes through then where do you stop? That black guy on the street corner could be evil, lets spy on him, or that indonesian who jogs every day looks suspicious…some years later its everyone who opposes the leader that is a culprit and must be watched…its all on the same line and its dangerous and NOT what this country is about.
I hope he scratches this ad immediately.
Michael
December 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Nice. Bring on all that free publicity. Better than being ignored.
Not Good
December 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
This phraseology gives the War Party carte blanche – and, believe you me, they’ll use it.
++++++++
Don’t you mean “we’ll use it.”?!? You are in league with Ron Ernest Paul. Take some responsibility for the people YOU support, or you’ll be devastated in time for his incumbency.
Michael in Cleveland
December 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
yea…that no visa’s from terrorist nations thing gets me…I have a friend from Pakistan from college…hes a really good guy…know know 100′s of Americans personally that are a 1000 times worse than him and 1000 times more of a threat to anyone…that part of the ad bugs me the most. Its ignorant.
Corey
December 29th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I agree as well, but we must move on. Trust me this will appeal to many well uh many people in Iowa so it must be done. Trust me I know I’ve called and talked to many of them personally.
This is just the type of ad a lot of them, uh need or something like that. Just imagine Brittany Spears and then imagine appealing to her family. Ok then you got it.
timothy boyle
December 29th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I agree. I am a big Paul supporter and agree with him on 95% of his platform, but his immigration stance is the one issue I do not support and this commercial is pretty awful.
vincent gigante
December 29th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I was surprised as well, but its for Iowa republicans, its a bit of pandering so I am not really mad about it.
Druff
December 29th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Good catch. The good guys should be scrutinized at least as closely as the bad guys.
Yosef
December 29th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
What’s racist about screening students more carefully when they are from nations that sponsor terrorists?
I don’t get this logic. So you’d have a 90 year old caucasion lady strip searched in an airport just so you can do the same to a suspicious looking young arab male just to be politically correct?
The federal governemnt is obligated by the constitution to (a) defend it’s citizens against foreign invaders, (b) protect the sovereignty of the nation and secure the borders.
This should never be used as an excuse to invade other sovereign nations, provoke terrorists, or engage in endless wars in offense, but a strong defense is something every president should be in favor of, including anti-war candidates.
Micah
December 29th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Agreed. Could it be a misplaced attempt to appeal to the Tancredo voter – if there is such an animal?
I don’t like it from an aesthetic level either.
It won’t change my vote, but hopefully they reconsider.
Not Good
December 29th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Ron Paul isn’t worth a fraction of Antiwar.blog’s time … please, give up the Ron Paul a.k.a. Wolf-in-Sheep’s clothing and find league with somebody worthy of your time.
The last I remember, Mike Huckabee had a ‘you break it, you bought it’ attitude towards the war … that ain’t too bad … why not look him up if you want to go for a Republican …. this Ron Paul mess suit us wrong.
Tom Paine
December 29th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Immigration is the one major issue I don’t agree with him.
But when I consider the other choices, that’s not too bad.
Gene
December 29th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
It’s a targeted ad for Iowans who believe there’s a jihadists under everyone’s bed. I thought that would be obvious to any savvy observer.
Michael in Cleveland
December 29th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
well yea…Ron and his campaign probably believe and rightfully so…that this type of ad wont drive off any of his current supporters since just about all of his supporters are of the diehard, I dont want anyone else type of voter…I see it mainly as a plea to the undecided/pliable voter who has no real candidate at heart….I dont agree with all of his views, but no one candidate has had the amount of views I like in the history of modern politics as Ron has anyways…still dont like the ad….maybe its meant for the “red states”
Jerry Hicks
December 29th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Sorry, I agree with Dr. Paul, except I would extend it to a total moratorium on foreign student visas for a period of time.
My sentiment has nothing to do with ethnicity or nationality though, it’s simply that our resources are far too strained. Student housing is unaffordable, classes are excessively crowded and there are far too many people competing for far too few resources.
Besides, with 30 million illegal immigrants in our country, we simply cannot continue the immigration policies of the 1880′s.
In case nobody has noticed, our resources are severely strained.
Elaine McKillop, Esq.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
As a Ron Paul supporter, I am displeased with this ad. I do not know what is meant by “terrorist nations”. I still believe in the candidate, but not in the management of his campaign. The grass root supporters do a much better job. This ad should be pulled immediately!
Michael in Cleveland
December 29th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
you are an idiot…Huckabee is an idiot…I dont want an idiot as a president…again.
the you break it you bought attitude is about as stupid as can be. and if you think that way…well..you pay for it.
scjim
December 29th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
The United States is just a nation; it isn’t bound to act in such a way as to appear balanced or fair minded or impartial to non citizens. A nation is not for non citizens. That’s what sovereignty is all about. There is nothing wrong with the government of one nation telling that of another nation, “For the time being, we have decided that the citizens of your country may not legally enter into or continue to reside in ours, without special authorization.” A nation has borders for a reason, to mind what, and who crosses them. It is high time that a man has stood up and said so.
Chad
December 29th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Hmmm…Justin, I’m a big fan…but…
This ad is DEFINITELY pandering, which is a shame, but it’s not nearly insinuating the absurd conclusions you drew. Ron Paul is talking about state-sponsored terrorism. In other words, if it can be proved that a nation is actively supporting terrorist groups.
Yosef
December 29th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Huckabee in saying we bought it, wanted us to finish it… wanted us to “fight with honor” even if we lose. That’s cowardice.
Ron Paul has been 100% against FOREIGN INTERVENTION and endless wars abroad and all the war propoganda. But keeping Americans safe on American soil is something we should all be for. Ron Paul has also been highly critical of all the wasteful spending on the war, all the trillions missing from defense budgets, etc.
You may not agree with Ron Paul’s methods 100%, but you have to agree with his philosophy in general if you are truly anti-war, and pro-American sovereignty. Entangling alliances with no one, military action ONLY if attacked or if authorized by Congress, and strong secure borders with a strong national defense. This is what the Constitution outlines the president do.
coboman
December 29th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Agree. This is disgraceful. I am a Ron Paul supporter for quite some time now, and this language is unbecoming of him.
“Terror is a tactic” he used to say. “You cannot wage war against a tactic”. But now it seems that you can call a whole nation a tactic.
Terrible. I hope the incompetent official campaign fixes the language before this ad goes in the air.
Not Good
December 29th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
De Nile is a very easy river to get lost in…
vincent gigante
December 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
“It’s a targeted ad for Iowans who believe there’s a jihadists under everyone’s bed. I thought that would be obvious to any savvy observer.”
hahahahahahaha, sad but true…
Kent Cowan
December 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
This morning I donated $50 to LRC, this afternoon this ad was placed in their blog. I suffered immediate buyers remorse and wish I’d donated to antiwar.com. This doesn’t fit with any libertarianism I know of. You can be sure, this isn’t going down well outside the U.S. among Ron Paul’s many foreign supporters (count me among them).
Michael in Cleveland
December 29th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
I think the website you are looking for is littlegreenfootballs.com you should go there and make friends
Nash
December 29th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Apparently Justin Raimondo has never seen a campaign ad before. You know the kind of ad that is trying to get votes from an electorate mobilized by thirty second ads on television?
We’re trying to win a Republican primary here boys and girls. If HQ doesn’t run ads like this targeting Republicans in Iowa our vote for Ron Paul might be rendered irrelevant by Super Tuesday.
Did I mention Tom Tancredo was dropped out and those who supported him are still deciding on who they should vote for?
David Wooten
December 29th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
The worst part is the “no more visas for students from terrorist nations” which the ad doesn’t name. Other than that, it’s pretty much what he’s been saying all along although the tone of the ad is also rather harsh. The ad may hurt him with his supporters without gaining anything from his detractors. However, rightly or wrongly, illegal immigration is the number 1 issue with voters and no one on the wrong side of the issue is likely to win a national election, much less the Republican nomination.
Sweejak
December 29th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
God this ad suks. Who is Paul’s PR saboteur? Is this what Paul is doing with his, I mean our, contributions?
Make the Paul higher or sumpthin.
Brian
December 29th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
What part of “illegal” do you people not understand? This is a wonderful ad by Dr. Paul. Do you realize that Americans are fed up with illegal immigration?
We need to secure our borders, how is that “racist?” Denying illegals benefits isn’t racist either. If Paul would have ran as an open border he’d be toast in the primaries. No Republican is going to vote for him.
Illegal immigration is a critical issue. This ad by Dr. Paul nails it.
Not Good
December 29th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
I thought Ron Paul would be the last person to have a sink-down-to-their level ideaology? He certainly isn’t making the grade of one who stands up for principle in this commercial!
Brian
December 29th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
You Libertarians are fricking all the same. Open borders rejects – no wonder why your candidates don’t get elected.
Here you have Dr. Paul who has espoused libertarian principles for years and finally he’s a viable candidate, and what do the Big L-libertarians do? They get all mad over an issue that’s a no-brainer to support. Illegal immigration is a serious issue facing this country, it’s not “racist,” I don’t care if buxom blonde Swedes are crossing the border, THE BORDERS MUST BE SECURED!
Gene
December 29th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
“The worst part is the “no more visas for students from terrorist nations†which the ad doesn’t name.”
I would have suggested Israel, but don’t think Ron’s that bold. ;)
Bill Bruford
December 29th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I have to agree with the AD. We moved recently from an area in East Dallas totally ruined by illegal alien activity not to mention home values dropping, daily helicopter searches and gunshots. What was worse was the increase of people dumping their motor oil in their yards.
My wife is from Russia and she is adapting costing you nothing. That’s what the ad is about. When you have to look outside every 10 minutes for property damage or wake up constantly to call police you would also understand.
Ron Paul is for law and order. W/o boarder protection we loose!
I agree the terrorist nation was not needed as who defines that nation?
J
December 29th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Ron Paul is a great politician. I say we just let the man do what he’s best at.
Scott Vines
December 29th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
“What’s racist about screening students more carefully when they are from nations that sponsor terrorists?”
Nothing is wrong with screening students from suspect nations. We should screen the hell out of them. However, this ad said no visas for students from terrorist nations. That’s guilt by association, something that’s been done to Ron Paul and his supporters by his detractors. If they shouldn’t do it, neither should we. Sigh…the campaign is trying to get the redneck vote.
Dan
December 29th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Fine go vote for Hillary or Obama and we will still be in Iraq by 2015.
DenisL
December 29th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Ron Paul is right almost 100% of time but I wonder about this almost great ad.
He had me until the “no student visas from terrorist nations.” Please define terrorist nation exactly. Which nations automatically have bright individual students that we do not want coming to America? Is that Iran, Cuba, and North Korea? Saudi Arabia currently has many fine REAL University students in America that are good for America. Yet 19 of 20 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. I am confused. Please explain.
Michael in Cleveland
December 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
hehe…I thought about that…If Israel counts as one of Ron Paul’s terrorist nations then I am all in for that as at least it would be fair
Brent
December 29th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Hrm. Looks like it is doing more harm than good.
And to be honest, I believe it is referring to being stricter when it comes to student visas from nations that we are at war with or nations that are sponsoring terrorism.
And, to be clear, the president doesn’t have the authority to determine visa rules. The congress does.
And it saddens me that people are withdrawing support or money from Ron Paul, since I really don’t see any other candidate who will bring this country back to a nation at peace.
Right now, the Ron Paul community seems to be a community of pieces, and that doesn’t help the campaign.
DenisL
December 29th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Just how buxom are we talking here. There are always room for exceptions!!
Brent
December 29th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
“No More Student Visas From Terrorist Nations”
I’ll play the political spin on this.
We will not increase the quotes of students coming from terrorist nations. No more “per year”.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
I did not say the ad is “racist.” You’ll note that this term appears nowhere in my blog post. What I am saying is that the entire concept of a “terrorist nation” is completely bogus. And Paul does not say we should screen students more carefully: he is saying we have to exclude an entire category of them based on nationality. Yes, the President has an obligation to defend the country: but kicking everyone out who is from, say, Morocco, is not going to make us safer.
Not Good
December 29th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
I will have to defend Ron Paul there… maybe this was referring to enacting legislation?!?
Nash
December 29th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
I judge candidates on their voting records not their rhetoric. We’re trying to win an election here. Getting last place in Iowa does not help spread the message of freedom or get our troops out of Iraq.
Ron Paul is the most honest, upstanding politician I’ve ever seen in my lifetime but he’s still a politician. He still has to play the silly games and unfortunately that means putting out targeted 30 second ads that are aimed at people’s emotions. We’re courting conservatives in Iowa here not liberals in San Francisco.
Go look up some of the attack ads Ron Paul ran in his past congressional campaigns. Principled? Debatable. Effective? Absolutely.
I didn’t give this guy my hard-earned money to run feel good ads in early states that doesn’t resonate with conservatives and doesn’t translate into votes and watch him poll at 2% nationally when February 5th rolls around.
Kent Cowan
December 29th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Someone needs to teach some of our newer recruits the difference between individualism vs. collectivism, statism vs freedom.
Aikme
December 29th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
It gladdens me to wright this, and yet I can no longer remain silent, as the United States, just a nation, one among many, is destined to fade into history in the short run. Is the US bound by some covenant, to act in such a way as to appear balanced or fair minded or impartial to non citizens? Not hardly. Why should it so bind itself? So that it can cease to furnish it’s own citizens with a lower quality of life, asap? No nation is not for itself. That’s what sovereignty is all about. The best it can do is favor its own citizens. What, then, is wrong with the government of one nation telling that of another nation, “For the time being, we have decided that the citizens of your country may not legally enter into, or continue to reside in ours, without special authorization.” A nation has borders for a reason, to mind what, and who crosses them. And I once had a friend from Liberia…in Africa.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
A total moratorium on student visas would have a huge economic impact, dry up a valuable source of foreign labor, and kill the computer industry. So much for free trade.
steve
December 29th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
The ad was perfect. We DO need to secure our border, end amnesty and birthright citizenship, and most importantly end welfare to the illegals! Most Americans believe this!!!! The content of the ad was designed to pull in Tancredo supporters!
Sweejak
December 29th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
“He had me until the “no student visas from terrorist nations.†Please define terrorist nation exactly. ”
Ditto. maybe no more art students from Israel?
Sure immigration..er mass migration, is a big issue and I’m ok with the ad except for the low brow tone and the terrorist flavorings which just reek of Guilliani. Paul’s points could be gotten across in a much better fashion, even in a short clip such as this.
Scott Vines
December 29th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
“I’ll play the political spin on this.
We will not increase the quotes (quotas) of students coming from terrorist nations. No more “per yearâ€.”
That’s exactly how Paul better spin it if the MSM questions him (which they will if he does well in Iowa and New Hampshire). You can bet your ass that Tim Russert would have called him on it last Sunday.
Justin
December 29th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Ron Paul has a dark side. His stance on global warming is scary. The scariest part is that he does actually represent what almost a majority of the population actually thinks usually. He does need to be challenged on these issues rather than just the mindless PR push that you see everywhere. It’s interesting, but poorly thought out. I saw saw some anti-Paul backlash graffiti on a poster today that said “Who Is Ron Paul”, someone had scribbled, “Who Gives A F*ck?”.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I agree to a limited degree: non-citizens do not have the same rights as citizens. And it may be true that a nation “isn’t bound to act in such a way as to appear balanced or fair-minded” — however, a political candidate should definitely try to appear balanced and fair-minded. That’s why this ad is a big mistake: it is just plain mean.
DenisL
December 29th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Please rethink this position. Many disciplines are crying out for VERY bright applicants that are not coming up from our public schools. There are real shortages of qualified people now. We need these bright people. NOW!
One prime example is the shortage of MDs being trained in America and the average 6 hour waiting times in ERs nationwide. Longer, much longer, at some hospitals. We need bright foreign trained MDs now. There is a ten year pipeline problem waiting time to begin training the homegrown MDs for ten years from now.
It is never ever a good idea to prevent bright, hard working people, who know what bad government really is, from coming to America to make a better life for themselves. Immigration with bright energetic people that work hard is a positive sum game. Particularly if they bring kids as bright and energetic as they are.
We need this type of people VERY VERY badly to help reinvigorate and remake America’s welfare state.
None of the 9/11 terrorists had families and small children. Let the folks come over who are coming with their families and kids. There will be no terrorists among them. They have a future and do not want to see it jeopardized.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Although antiwar.com does NOT support candidates — any candidates, and not just Ron Paul — I personally plan on voting for Ron in spite of this disagreement. And I would remind you that “strong secure borders” do not necessarily mean victimizing whole groups of innocent people.
Greg M
December 29th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Ron Paul has made it clear that he supports legal immigration. In fact, for those who go through the proper naturalization process, Ron Paul has indicated he would have no problem allowing 60 million immigrants entry.
As he has pointed out, once the stranglehold on our economy by the military industrial complex and the FED is broken, and our economy is able to function and grow again, we will need more immigrants. However, the current welfare state incentives are causing too many people to come here who simply want something for nothing. The majority of immigrants are hard, honest workers, but enough bad apples are coming in illegally to the point that our social services are being strained to the breaking point.
Eliminate the incentives for the bad apples, then throw the gates wide open. Relaxed immigration policies will make sense after a transition back to freedom.
Paul
December 29th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I’m a Ron Paul supporter and I wholeheartedly agree. The Ron Paul grassroots forum is actually churning right now with disgust for that particular phrase. Dozens of threads have been opened condemning it. I hope it is retracted.
Daniel Maxwell
December 29th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
What you all forget is that Ron Paul does represent his district, not left-libertarian open borders dogma. I am willing to bet, that immigration is a strong issue there in Texas, and not many are sympathetic to the illegals.
I agree with Ron in the presence of a welfare state its madness to just allow mass immigration with at least some restrictions. However I think in the end I agree with Justin, this ad is a bit too rough and pandering for me, I would never have used the term ‘terrorist nations’. Maybe some of Ron’s PR people think he seems ‘weak’ on terrorism. Who knows. Oh well. Remember that in a Presidential campaign can bring out the worst in somebody.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
I don’t think it is fair to attribute to LRC the views expressed in the ad. So your buyer’s remorse is misplaced.
Daniel Maxwell
December 29th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Please explain how his stance on global warming/climate change is ‘scary’.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Yes, Tancredo dropped out. Why? Because his hysterical littlegreenfootballs-type anti-Muslim hysteria was and is ugly and unappealing. Appealing to the 1 percent of the voters who said they would vote for Tancredo isn’t worth all the people you will alienate.
Kent Cowan
December 29th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Good. Hope you’re right.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
If you’ll read what I actually wrote in this piece, you’ll see that I objected specifically to the part that targets visas for “students from terrorist nations.” I said nothing about his objections to illegal aliens or his proposals to combat illegal immigration.
Sweejak
December 29th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Everybody has a dark side. Yes, if something bugs you it should be challenged, after all, it’s how all of us got here. Paul’s coalition ranges from all over the spectrum, just a matter of time till someone finds the crevices.. I just wasn’t expecting it to come from his own PR team.
I don’t think this is fatal and I don’t think I will give it much more of my time because his other statements outweigh this poorly conceived ad. I’ll be watching closely though.
RM
December 29th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
The ad didn’t say “more careful screening,” it said “no more student visas.” As long as you hold everyone to the same standard, there’s no harm in a bureaucrat double-checking his work and screening people carefully for whatever reason. But there is harm if you cut off cultural and economic ties with students, who are most likely to support American values and to contribute to the American economy once they graduate. That’s just dumb.
Will you let in the occasional fraud, loser, or even killer? Yeah, possibly. Catching sloppy paperwork will reduce risk somewhat, and may even have stopped the 9/11 hijackers (http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp). But you will never have 100% security in a free country, and you need to get used to an acceptable level of risk in order to live freely, as a person and as a nation.
To address your tangential airport question: No one should be strip-searched just for being “suspicious looking.” That’s not political correctness, that’s the 4th Amendment.
The bizarre thing about this ad is the grammatical error — it said “No More Student VISAs from Terrorist Nations”, with VISA capitalized like the credit card. That part looks like it was thrown in at the last minute somehow. Or maybe he just wants to protect these foreign students from junk mail?
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
*Sigh* I do not support open borders. I never said the ad was “racist.” I agree that our borders must be secured. However, I do not agree that we must deny student visas to those who come from, say, Lebanon, or Dubai — because doing so doesn’t make us any safer.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Sorry, bud, but nobody gets a free ride. Not even Ron Paul. I love the guy: but he’s wrong here, and I’m no shrinking violet.
Dana Garrett
December 29th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
The only surprise is that so many people find this uncharacteristic of Paul.
Just read those comments penned under his name in the Ron Paul Survival Report regarding the LA Riots. His stance in the campaign video is only a sanitized version of the xenophobia evidenced in the “Survival Report.”
I know, I know the line. “Those words weren’t penned by Paul but by a staffer.”
Ever wonder why Paul won’t name the staffer…tell us exactly who wrote those awful words? Why he won’t move the racist question about him once & for all by giving us the staffer’s name?
Maybe the staffer doesn’t exist.
Scott Vines
December 29th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
“What, then, is wrong with the government of one nation telling that of another nation, “For the time being, we have decided that the citizens of your country may not legally enter into, or continue to reside in ours, without special authorization.—
I see you qualified your statement with the phrase, “without special authorization.” I doubt many here disagree with you. However, the ad suggests that we won’t accept any more students from “terrorist” nations. It says nothing about “special authorization.” I think we should put America first and fight the globalists at every turn. However, America has greatly benefited from allowing foreigners to study and work here. It’s actually in our best interest as a nation to remain open to legal immigration from ALL nations. But like I said in an earlier post, we should screen the hell out of them.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
No one is saying vote for Hillary or Obama. Nor am I telling anyone to vote for Ron Paul, for that matter. All I’m saying is that the part of the ad about visas for students from so-called “terrorist nations” is complete and utter balderdash.
Daniel Maxwell
December 29th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Maybe because he does not want to drag the staffer’s name through the mud for the sake of satisfying people like you?
stephen
December 29th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
if there is a shortage of MDs, it is because the medical industry controls how many people are allowed into medical school. there is no shortage of qualified people. there are too few slots.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
No one is telling people to withdraw their support for Ron Paul. But critical thinking never hurt anyone.
Sweejak
December 29th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
“Many of the 9/11 terrorists were CIA dupes who came from Saudi Arabia on fast track student visas.”
Indeed! A full one minute ad going into some detail on just how that was done would be far more useful, and it would take away the collective guilt finger pointing feeling that has upset his more thoughtful supporters.
I hope someone out there knows his PR team and sends them this thread or another thread.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
A moratorium on visas for students from “terrorist nations” is something that I would expect from Rudy Giuliani. And I don’t mean that as a compliment.
Richard Brodie
December 29th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
I don’t think he goes far enough. We should end student visas for ALL nations until we’ve gotten our act back together as a country, to the point where we don’t have to import foreign brains to compensate for the fact that our own messed up educational system can’t produce the number of competent scientists and engineers we need.
And that includes removing whatever obstacles have stood in the way of any major new Ivy league universities being established for God knows how long, as well as leaving a lot more money in every parent’s pocket to be able to afford to send their children through college without them having to face the demoralizing prospect of becoming debt slaves to student loans for half of their remaining lives.
RM
December 29th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Thank you Justin. That sums it up nicely.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
First of all, student visas are not a question of immigration, legal or illegal. Students who want to study in the US need visas to come here: they usually go back to their own countries after their studies are completed. Paul would deny visas to students who hail from unspecified “terrorist nations.” Which nations are these? He doesn’t say.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I’m not sure how this has anything to do with “9/11 truth,” whatever that may be.
Ad Watcher
December 29th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
How is this going to play out in the press?
Who would the terrorist nations be?
Perhaps the “Axis of Evil” nations? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? How about China? Israel? How could one possibly define a nation this way?
I just do not see how the campaign advances with the possible downside of this terrorist nation component. Yes – it’s tough. So is the war on terror and Tasers on every corner. Doesn’t mean it’s right.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
You are full of it. Again, this has nothing to do with racism. Remember, the staffer who wrote those newsletters was FIRED. And yes, that staffer does (or did) indeed exist.
stephen
December 29th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
if they are coming here for our “something for nothing” policies, then why don’t they go to scandinavia countries, where there’s a lot more of this stuff, and it’s closer to home?
Daniel Maxwell
December 29th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Justin I’ve always felt bad that some people associate you with the 911 truther/Alex Jones camp. I’ve had to defend you before to other people because of it…not sure how it happened. I guess to some people ‘anti-war = 911 truther’.
Daniel Maxwell
December 29th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Of course shes full of it. You read that blog of hers she links to in her name? It’s full of leftist nonsense like ‘how America’s private health care system kills’ and other rubbish.
stephen
December 29th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
of course one could argue that texas is actually mexico, unless you favor land grabs at gunpoint.
Rich
December 29th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Okay, for those of you saying that this ad is just what the Dr. ordered for a now-viable campaign, I offer the following rebuttal:
Agreed, Dr. Paul has consistently stood strong against illegal immigration. This is not the issue the “big-L” libertarians have with this ad. Many of us accept illegal immigration as a problem this country needs to get a hold of, and quickly. The problem with the ad is the use of the term “terrorist nations” which many of us have come to view as a tool of the Neo-Conservative agenda. Many of us reject the idea of a “global war on terror” and such. To pander to the weak-minded and/or confused public is out of character for Dr. Paul. We do not have an issue with most of the ad, just the part which implies that Dr. Paul subscribes to the notion that “terrorist nations” exist, and that people from those nations are all dangerous to our national security.
Mark Sunwall
December 29th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Raimondo,
Really, that at this crucial juncture you should be making a fuss over something like this is really imprudent! Let’s go back to basics on the nature of moral compromise:
1) Essential moral compromise: Let’s suppose Ron Paul were to take a large contribution from a military manufacturer in return for a promise not to close down as many overseas bases as he was planning on. I would defect from him instantly.
2) Noble vs. Expedient Rhetoric: This is a continuum issue, not an excluded middle issue. I’m not so crazy about this ad or whether getting the Tancredo voter (a sort of passenger pidgeon constituency) is worth it. But knowing that Dr. Paul is a moral giant in comparason to other candidates of either party, it is a great diservice to tar him with a (possible) rhetorical misjudgement on the part of his staff. His staff knows that the Iowa Republican Party is not a hotbed of left-Libertarians! They evidently made the judgement call and you should have tried to get in contact with the relevant persons to find out what’s up, and register a complaint if you wern’t satisfied. Instead you are spreading a negative message on this wonderful (and hitherto Paulist-friendly) site. I respect your desire for ideological and even rhetorical purity, but with five days before the onset of the primaries the timing of your soul-searching on these points is pretty lousy!
Tom
December 29th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
The more official Ron Paul commericals I see, the more I think his commerical writting staff is full of plants from another campaign.
Every last one of them have been awful.
stephen
December 29th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
the first paragraph is ridiculous. there are plenty of qualified american citizens with degrees to perform these jobs. the companies just prefer to pay foreigners less. and then banks wonder why epople don’t pay back their school loans.
Stephen
December 29th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Once Paul is elected President, do you think he would label any nations as terrorist nations? This ad is just what is needed to attract more Republican voters to his campaign.
G5
December 29th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
When are you going to recommend a pro-U.S. foreign policy PAC? Oh, you’re all confused when he becomes President he will help to define those nations that truly support terrorism. Ie Saudi Arabia, Israel etc.
stephen
December 29th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
yes, and under the logic being used in the ad, one could turn around and say that the united states is a terrorist nation. by far and away the leading one because of the size and overwhelming nature of the forces involved. ask anyone who lived in central america in the 1980′s, indonesians in the 1960′s, brazilians and argentinians under the generals, or the chileans, palestinians, or any other group that was slaughtered with arms and training sent via the US taxpayer.
dimwitted individuals, like the ones that this shameful ad is directed as, need to learn how to separate the people of a country from their “leaders”. i’m an american, and the US government doesn’t represent me any more than the mexican government does. i only “obey” them by paying taxes because i don’t want to be sent to a federal gulag.
stephen
December 29th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
yea me too, and it will be fun to watch her and her whole family be deported by this libertarianâ„¢ that we have been blessed with in our time of need.
G5
December 29th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
“We” the U.S. broke Iraq and should stay forever until it’s fixed says Huckabee. Huckabee’s position is laughably pro-war.
Dana Garrett
December 29th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
If he exists, then Paul should tell is his name. It’s a simple as that.
Jerry Hicks
December 29th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
The computer industry would do fine without foreign students overflowing our dorms and classrooms and displacing our ability to train our own students. (I’m a veteran of the computer industry).
And I said nothing of free trade. Free trade is fine, my argument is about the capacity of our system.
Besides, the computer field is experiencing a glut of labor, foreign and otherwise. We don’t need to be training the competition to cut the throats of our own people, especially when our education costs have spiraled because of excessive demand.
Dana Garrett
December 29th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Oh, you are saying it’s OK for Paul to compromise his principals during a campaign to pander to the hateful to get votes.
Justin Raimondo
December 29th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I am a writer, not a party lining hack. Sorry, I don’t cut anyone slack, and certainly not on such an important foreign policy issue as declaring open season on citizens of “terrorist nations.”
Believe me, don’t like doing this any better than you like reading it. I have spent the last few months defending Paul from all manner of vicious smears, from both the right and the left. That is precisely why I could not keep silent.
As for the timing: it’s always the right time to tell the truth.
Dana Garrett
December 30th, 2007 at 12:01 am
“I respect your desire for ideological and even rhetorical purity, but with five days before the onset of the primaries the timing of your soul-searching on these points is pretty lousy!”
One needs no more statement than this to see how much a of a cult figure Paul is to his sheep. Raimondo is being accused of betraying the Messiah, of committing a kind of heresy, and is being upbraided for questioning the faith.
When does the Inquisition begin?
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 12:01 am
I have no special pull with the Paul campaign, and no inside line to them, either. Aside from that, I agree that Ron is a moral giant compared to the opposition — which is precisely why this ad is so unworthy of him.
Daniel Maxwell
December 30th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Once again, why? Does it matter? How does it affect the campaign? Oh yeah, that’s right, you just want to produce a ‘scandal’ to blog about.
Dana Garrett
December 30th, 2007 at 12:07 am
I love this one:
“The more official Ron Paul commericals I see, the more I think his commerical writting staff is full of plants from another campaign”
I suppose we are suspected to believe that Paul doesn’t review the commercials before they are released. No, it’s better to posit a grand conspiracy against him than wrestle w/ the fact that when he says “I approve this message” he really did.
Sorry, it’s always tough when the film comes off your eyes. But the truth is that Paul’s awful commercials are coming out this way because they reflect his core values and too many of those values are too anti-social for a would-be president.
Scott Frost
December 30th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Justin is absolutely right. And it pains me to say that as much as I know it pained him to write this article. I hope the campaign pulls this immigration ad and sticks with issues like bringing our troops home, sound money and no income tax. If they must focus on immigration, talk about the welfare state aspects of it and protecting the border by ending the insane war on drugs.
I wonder if Ron Paul even heard the ad before they put his “I approved this message” sound bite on it. The tone of the ad is all wrong, in my opinion. We all know that Ron Paul wants to protect our borders, yet this ad is causing supporters to quit on him. For every new supporter that this ad brings in, I fear one old supporter will be lost. Not good.
Robert Johnson
December 30th, 2007 at 12:08 am
People..calm down. Congress would need to declare countries “terrorist states” and then this would go into effect. Everyone is so worried about the powers of the President, but Ron Paul has stated numerous times that he wants to return the power back to the states and the people (congress). Quit being so paranoid. This ad is specific to Iowa and New Hampshire. This issue is the NUMBER ONE ISSUE in Iowa. Check the polls.
Jed
December 30th, 2007 at 12:11 am
I like Ron Paul. I think these Romney-style commercials are a bad idea. Announcer is trying too hard. I think the line about denying student vistas from terrorist nations isn’t good. If you want to go this route then better wording about scrutinizing/tracking/verifying student visas would be better. I’d rather see commercials drawing people to the campaign (who is ron paul? or google ron paul) or his beleif in the constitution then trying to sway with sound bites from typical lowest common demoninator campaign ads. They turn me off.
James A.
December 30th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Amen.
This is what I just don’t get about people. Everyone wants to argue using only a piece of the facts.
Ron Paul wants to gut the Federal Education system, which if his idea is correct, would increase the quality of students in this country. He has complained about our subsidies to colleges and how it increases the cost of tuition. He wants to enact policies that would help lower tuitions. This has the effect of allowing more people to afford college. He wants to strip regulations away from companies that are forcing them to look for foreign workers, or going oversees entirely, which means more jobs for the people willing to go to college.
See? His positions don’t make any sense if you can’t look at the big picture. It’s like asking how we are going to pay for the Iraq war if he eliminates the income tax. DUH! I understand that many of his ideas are complex, but come on! All I see here is reactionary BS.
However, I make the disclaimer that I have been suggesting exactly as this ad says; a stop (temporarily) in allowing visas to students from nations that sponsor terrorism. Sorry bubs, but they have plenty of other places to go and our system is totally jacked up right now.
Of course there is a certain amount of risk involved in being free, but I am not so interested in someone from Pakistan being “free” at the risk of Joe the neighbor being safe. We do not ‘owe’ anything to any other country.
You can be assured that some will follow us home after we withdraw from the middle east. We must have our guard up. There WILL continue to be blowback in an attempt to provoke us. Our foreign intervention is their claimed rallying call for the terrorists. Do you really believe they WANT us to leave?
Again, I am more concerned about the safety of my neighbor Joe than I am a wannabe student from some foreign country. They should work to eliminate terrorism in their own countries if they want to participate in our markets. This is entirely up to them.
Perhaps this blog is just full of pacifists. Ron Paul is NOT a pacifist. And I would not elect a president that was.
They say Ron Paul wants to just put his head in the sand. You people actually BELIEVED that and liked that. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth. The threat is very real, and Ron Paul is not going to simply ignore it.
shm224
December 30th, 2007 at 12:12 am
I’m pretty sure that Ron Paul himself is not necessarily behind the ad. Paul looks at immigration problem from economical point of view – that is, he believes we would be welcoming immigrants or foreigners working in this country as guest workers if our economy is prosperous. He doesn’t support illegality of illegal immigration and the fact that illegals are overburden to already imperfect welfare system here.
Pandering to extreme anti-immigrants invoking “terrorists” or “9/11″, like many others pointed out here, doesn’t seem like a good strategy; neither is it consistent with Paul’s view of the problem. I’m pretty sure that this is a creation of some of his zealous staff.
Dana Garrett
December 30th, 2007 at 12:13 am
“Once again, why? Does it matter?”
Does someone running for prez saying 95% of the African American population doesn’t have legitimate political opinions matter? Are you kidding?
Yes, it matters if he said them. If he didn’t, he should tell us who did.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 12:13 am
I am not reassured by this “Congress must approve” business: we all know that powerful foreign lobbyists would soon have the entire Arab-Muslim world designated an Official Terrorist Zone.
Robert Johnson
December 30th, 2007 at 12:14 am
sorry…we are way past who is Ron Paul..It’s time to let people hear his positions on the issues.
Besides, I don’t understand why everyone has a problem with this “new ad.” Did any of you ever read his positions on illegal immigration prior to this commercial? It’s nothing new! Gees…
Robert Johnson
December 30th, 2007 at 12:16 am
and that is the fault of who? The people for electing crappy politicians. Want to change America? Run for office or get better people who represent our views.
Robert Johnson
December 30th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Ron Paul is not pandering. This is the same position he’s always had on illegal immigration
Nash
December 30th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Wrong. Tancredo was polling higher than 1% in Iowa and the “Immigration Issue” is THE major issue in Iowa, especially when tied to “National Security”.
I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that Tom Tancredo managed 4th place in the Iowa straw poll behind the top two in the current national polls and right above Ron Paul…
Yes the rhetoric is straight out of the Pat Buchanan play-book. Pat Buchanan also happened to do very well in Iowa in 1996 and then went on to win New Hampshire. God forbid an anti-war candidate might show well in some early primary states appealing to conservatives, you know the people who actually vote?
Linda J
December 30th, 2007 at 12:18 am
What about the fact that Dr. Paul doesn’t believe that a woman should be able to control her own reproductive processes. How does that square with being a libertarian? Freedom is just for the guy with the sperm. He’s free to inject it and leave. But the woman is not free to control her bodily functions. Bogus. Freedom for the few, the proud, the male.
Nash
December 30th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Here might I suggest a website more to your liking:
http://www.dailykos.com
or perhaps:
http://www.cnn.com
Dana Garrett
December 30th, 2007 at 12:20 am
“I’m pretty sure that Ron Paul himself is not necessarily behind the ad”
Once again we get the the unnamed “staffer” excuse: “It’s not Paul. It must be someone because that is inconsistent w/ my fanatasies about him.”
Well, if Paul is letting commercials be released saying he approved them w/o actually approving them, then he is either a liar or an incompetent administrator. In either case, he’s lousy presidential material.
Robert Johnson
December 30th, 2007 at 12:21 am
yes..yes…securing our borders, ending the illegal alien welfare state, and offering no amnesty for them is definitely racist…NOT!! Go Ron Paul!
James A.
December 30th, 2007 at 12:22 am
He is? By what, four people? The majority of the comments have agreed with him. Get a job. Get a life. Ron Paul’s supporters are not ‘mobbing” Justin. We are debating. Some are pointing fingers at Justin, most are not.
You are simply an idiot that doesn’t even know what a cult looks like.
Go vote for Hillary “cause she wants to bring the troops home!” in your gleeful sunshiny stupidity.
Nash
December 30th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Hey Code Pink: Stop Trolling. We like Ron Paul because he’s not a socialist. Your repeated claims that he’s a racist don’t stick here. Go back to the kos.
Jed
December 30th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Regarding we are way past who is Ron Paul:
You may be but the majority of people don’t have any clue. This message has been working. I wouldn’t change it now. Sound bites about issues aren’t going to do it. I’d rather him articulate how he can lead.
Regarding his immigration position:
Yes I read it. I have no problem with it. As I stated I don’t like this kind of commercial. There’s likely some people who do so that’s a matter of opinion. It would have been a turn off for me.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Oh please. The abortion issue is debatable: if life does truly begin at conception, then one could make the argument that the protection of the unborn is perfectly legitimate — and I’m sure you would not support aborting an 8 1/2 month-old fetus. So it comes down to where one draws the line.
The “no visas for ‘terrorist’ nationals” issue is another matter entirely.
James A.
December 30th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Dana: “Yeah, so vote for Hillary! She wants to bring the troops home!!”
Robert Johnson
December 30th, 2007 at 12:25 am
why don’t you rephrase your stance to “what about the fact that Ron Paul doesn’t want to let women commit MURDER?” Oh I forgot…It’s all about you isn’t it?
But you might want to read a little about how he does not want to decide that for you but leave it up to the states. A completely different position…Even though your post is off topic…
Sweejak
December 30th, 2007 at 12:26 am
“Once again we get the the unnamed “staffer†excuse:”
And if he dumps the ad, or whoever wrote it? Would that be good enough or would it be fantasy?
It would work for me.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 12:27 am
It may be that Paul did not review this ad: after all, he’s on the campaign trail. Hopefully, this blog post will bring the matter to his attention.
Jed
December 30th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Please link to where he says this.
Zeljko
December 30th, 2007 at 12:28 am
I am a Ron Paul supporter and I couldn’t believe what I saw at the end of that add regarding the “no student visas from terrorist nations”.
Very odd, for one I never heard him state anything like that before, and for two, it goes against his platform in “dealing with all nations”.
I still support Ron Paul, but I must say..this remark was very odd and needs to be addressed immediately.
Mark G
December 30th, 2007 at 12:28 am
I like it. Straight and to the point. When Americans can’t even afford to put their kids in college, why should we let someone who ISN’T a citizen come here? Believe it or not, most that come here for school never leave and end up taking an American citizens job. Trust me I know. I trained my replacement…
James A.
December 30th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Exactly… my lord people, quit acting like you are a victim of your government. You ARE responsible for what your government does. Start acting like a citizen for a change and fight for good candidates, work to remove bad ones, and generally just get more involved. Understand how your government works. If you can’t be bothered to participate, don’t bother going on political blogs crying about politics.
I have no sympathy for people that sit there and do nothing, and then complain about what they get.
Anything worth something must be fought for.
robbie
December 30th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Justin,
I just today bought a second copy of your book, this one at B&N in hard cover at over $40 to give to my college kid as a present.Now i have to tell her that you are afraid to play hardball?
If we want to kick some ass, we need to be ready to rumble, not just play patty cake at a fucking teaparty.
Mark
December 30th, 2007 at 12:30 am
It’s five countries:
Cuba – Added in 1982 though no official explanation was provided.[1] A 2003 report contended that Cuba supported terrorist groups during the period it was added to the report. Current justification cites support for members of Basque ETA and the Colombian FARC and ELN groups. Conversely, Cuba has accused the United States of supporting, sponsoring and initiating terrorism against Cuba since 1961. Those who oppose Cuba’s retention on the list contend that Cuba has made repeated offers to the United States since 2001 for a bilateral agreement to fight international terrorism, but the United States has not responded.[1] Critics also argue that domestic political considerations are responsible and question many of the allegations made in the State department report.
Iran – Added in 1984. According to the State Department, “continued to provide Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian rejectionist groups—notably Hamas, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the PFLP-GC—with varying amounts of funding, safe haven, training, and weapons. It also encouraged Hezbollah and the rejectionist Palestinian groups to coordinate their planning and to escalate their activities.”
North Korea – Added in 1988. Sold weapons to terrorist groups and to have given asylum to Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction members. The country is also responsible for the Rangoon bombing and the bombing of KAL Flight 858.
Sudan – Added in 1993. “A number of international terrorist groups including al-Qaida, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Egyptian al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Hamas continued to use Sudan as a safe haven, primarily for conducting logistics and other support activities.”
Syria – “provided Hezbollah, Hamas, PFLP-GC, the PIJ, and other militia organizations refuge and basing privileges.”
Doesn’t need to be in the ad though.
Red
December 30th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Well, you’ll be unhappy to know that this already pretty much has been put into practice. You have to have pretty good connections to get a visa of any flavor these days. Even from “non-terrorist” countries.
I live in Asia and people right and left get denied for even tourist visas. Then if you get one it can be a nightmare at the airport getting in. Lots of folks get turned away, even with visas. I had one student who got interrogated for 3-4 hours in SFO while just coming over to visit some friends over Thanksgiving, until they finally let her through. Oh, I even had one student – half Brit/half American (British citizen) – get denied a student visa.
Welcome to the real world. And thank you George Bush.
Rick
December 30th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Ron Paul just needs a commerical where he just looks strait in the camera and says, “I hate our government as much as you do, but I still love our country.” Cut to “Vote for Ron Paul” banner. Fade to black.
No one could argue with that.
NH
December 30th, 2007 at 12:34 am
I’m not so sure what is bad about this ad?
You knew he was against illegal immigration in the first place so this ad goes right to the heart of it.
Those students of aviation were able to stay here long after their visas expired and went on to hijack a couple planes….and no one cared.
It’s a great ad, right on target.
Jed
December 30th, 2007 at 12:34 am
wow generalize a bunch?
robbie
December 30th, 2007 at 12:37 am
It is a great ad!!!
RVNUTT
December 30th, 2007 at 12:37 am
I agree with Justin. As someone who has donated over $1000 to Ron’s campaign, I am very disappointed to see that my money is being used for such an ad. I work with many fine individuals from so-called “terrorist” countries who have studied in the US and who I consider good friends. Is Ron proposing they never should have been allowed to come here to study? Say it isn’t so.
James A.
December 30th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Unfortunately, Mark, there are people that really couldn’t care less about you. I mean you are an American citizen, not some poor underpriviliged citizen of a foreign country that harbors terrorists.
They just look at you and say “get a job” rather than listening to why you might not have one.
It might seem cold-hearted, but I care more about the citizens of THIS country than I do about the citizens of another country. They should work to change their own.
We can’t save the world… especially if we can’t save ourselves.
I am willing to bet these “bleeding hearts for foreigners” stepped over a homeless man today. After all, it is the liberals that are lobbying around the country to ban people from feeding the homeless in public parks because it is an “eyesore” and attracts drugs, etc.. They want to help everybody, but they want someone else to do it and they don’t want it their backyards.
Jed
December 30th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Terrorists can come from any country so it suggests he is naive. I guess it depends on who’s the target of the ad. I already said don’t like it. It’s fear mongering. And this is coming from someone who likes his message.
Richard Brodie
December 30th, 2007 at 12:47 am
“there are plenty of qualified american citizens with degrees to perform these jobs. the companies just prefer to pay foreigners less.”
If that’s true, then why would you approve of bringing foreigners here to educate them and then send them back to their home countries so that they could form a pool of cheap labor to undercut the salaries of Americans.
Our Federal government is not obligated to protect the rights of non-citizens. Its job is to protect the citizens of the United States. While it may be true that “all men are endowed …” with the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is not our responsibility to insure that these rights are enjoyed by citizens of other countries – neither by interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries, nor by allowing their citizens to come here, if that would be detrimental to the enjoyment of those rights by our own citizens.
If you’re trying to pursue happiness by spending the better part of a decade in school getting a degree, you don’t want to find out that because of how solicitous your government has been about insuring the liberty of foreigners to come here for an education, your hopes of being able to earn a salary commensurate with your training have been dashed.
NH
December 30th, 2007 at 12:49 am
It is not so. Ron’s ad is simple: It says, unfettered immigration leads to letting in anyone, even those who might do us harm.
He doesn’t believe in world government thus we should have borders.
If you believe in world government then you should be voting for Hillary.
John
December 30th, 2007 at 12:50 am
I like the ad. We all know where Ron Paul stands on foreign policy, so the “terrorist nations” language means places where we know terrorists exist. We all know RP does not advocate preemptive strikes. He is just saying he will defend America’s borders. And let’s face it people, RP needs to show that he’s “tough”. Americans need to see that.
NH
December 30th, 2007 at 12:52 am
FEAR mongering? Get real. These people are breaking the law, period.
Nothing to FEAR except world government as promoted by the foundations.
They won’t have to do any work to create the NAU.
Steve G
December 30th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Do you want people from terrorist nations coming here to take advantage of our schools only to turn around and use what they learned here against us? Get real people, and think about the point he is trying to make. Jesus Christ!
tsoldrin
December 30th, 2007 at 12:54 am
I’m only aware of two states that deserve the term ‘terrorist nation’ and since we don’t need visas to travel domestically (yet), that only leave Israel and I have no problem shutting down student visas to Israeli mossad agents and assets.
Brent
December 30th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Ya, he does check your site out I hear. Hopefully they clarify this, I didn’t realize it’d make this much commotion. Hopefully people realize what Ron Paul is for and still vote for him over the “others” :X
Jed
December 30th, 2007 at 12:56 am
The purpose of ads is to reach out to people who don’t “know”. Rudy says “Terrorist, terrorist, 9-11″ Ron says “Freedom, liberty, constitution”. Better to say he’s going to scrutinize all students visas and not just ones from terrorist countries.
Steve G
December 30th, 2007 at 12:56 am
If they are here legally then they won’t be deported…geow up.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Terrorists exist in Britain. Should all student visa applications from that country be automatically rejected? I don’t think so….
Lynus O'Brien
December 30th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Obviously there are a lot of younger brainwashed people on this comment forum. The sad reality is, when s&$!t hits the fan, rights go down. Far better to see the rights of those not even citizens being brought more in line with the rest of the world, than to have as is now happening with our rights as US citizens being infringed. If anyone thinks Ron Paul is inheriting a sweet deal look again–this country is in a mess.
Please instead of having your stupid knee-jerk indoctrinated response please see the wisdom, he is being consistent with all that he says. Ron Paul wants to make this country secure once again–it is foolish to think that is accomplished with the policies put in place by the New World order.
Regardless of what one may think of Doctor Ron Paul, he is no Paulianna, he is a learned man. He Knows what he is doing–don’t be so friggin’ lock step brainwashed and repeat the same tired cliches you’ve been taught–he is articulating what any real country in the world knows is the only way for a sustainability in these trying times.
Until things settle down in this crazy ass world this is not only reasonable, but something that would be done by any caring president unless they were bought by the one world order.
Read some history and then make your comments please, it is too tiring to this hoss to listen to the same ol’ crap that has brought this nation to it’s knees being rehashed as outrage. Lynus O’Brien CHAMELEONMONARCHY.COM
Trevor
December 30th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Hey Kent,
Are your countries boarder”s secure? What is sovernty? Is the secret and scared truth only known and learned in the USofA? We must let everyone in to our country, why?
Ron Paul
December 30th, 2007 at 12:57 am
“Terrorist Nation” is jingoistic and clearly divisive.
But should we give some immigrants fast track visas just because they’re students? Isn’t that creating privileges for a special class?
Although I am 100% for cultural exchanges etc, the policy of letting rich kids from abroad cut in line has hurt our security. Or at least, that is what Middle America believes and what Ron must respect as their representative.
As a sworn representative of the peoples’ will, it is not proper for Ron to impose his own agenda over theirs.
Iowan or Californian, Americans simply don’t like Saudi Arabians coming over here at their whim, while so many others have to wait in line or risk illegal entry.
I know Justin cringes, but this is our prerogative as the owners of the USA.
Maybe the sticky wicket is just where paleos and libertarians agree to disagree.
Paleos believe we have every right to regulate immigration, libertarians are more sympathetic to Objectivist positions on the illegitimacy of orders/citizenship.
Brent
December 30th, 2007 at 12:57 am
It isn’t. He’d just want further background checks, more investigations I suppose.
Steve G
December 30th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Personally, I don’t want people from “terrorist” nations coming here to get a good education only to turn around a use it against us.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 12:58 am
“These people” who are applying for student visas and who happen to be from any one of a number of potential ‘terrorist nations’ are NOT breaking the law: they are applying for legal visas. Paul would prevent this form of legal entry into the US, based on nothing but the nationality of the applicants.
Jed
December 30th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Students coming from terrorist countries are breaking the law? No most are coming here to go to school. It’s an over reaction and the way it’s worded is fear mongering.
A. G. Phillbin
December 30th, 2007 at 1:01 am
I look at this ad from two points of view: 1) what I personally believe about the immigration situation, and 2) what I think is the best “face” to put on the Paul campaign. I say this because I realize that although I have contributed $ to the campaign and have changed my registration to Republican for the express purpose of voting for RP, I am not an Iowan, nor a part of his “core constituency.”
So first, my take on the ad as it relates to my view of immigration:
a) physically secure the borders — I agree 100%
b) no amnesty for illegal aliens — disagree. It is impossible, without massive police state measures, to deport 10 million people. In the meantime, the more they remain “illegal,” the more they will continue to serve as cheap labor. Therefore, there must ultimately be some kind of amnesty, but ONLY AFTER POINT A) is accomplished.
c) No welfare for illegal immigrants — while I don’t have a problem denying non-emergency services to illegal immigrants, I seriously question how anyone even knows how many “illegal aliens” are getting “welfare.” Who even keeps such stats, and how would anyone obtain them? While I have never applied for welfare, I have on occasion received food stamps. The last time was over 15 years ago, and even then they requested my social security number. Now, if the welfare department employees don’t bother to check, how does anyone know if an illegal immigrant did apply? And if they do check, they are of course required to deny the application. The slogan sounds like agitprop, not a description of reality.
d) an end to birthright citizenship — if he means specifically children born to illegal immigrants, no problem. This problem of “anchor babies” needs to be explained better than it can be in a 30 second spot.
e) no VISAS (sic) to students from terrorist nations — I agree with Justin. This “terrorist nations” is war party rhetoric, and may well be used to justify another war. Worse, it back-handedly justifies the existence of the Dept. of Homeland Security, and other repressive “war on terrorism” measures, such as the Patriot Act. The American people need to wake up to the fraudulent, bait-and-switch nature of the “war on terrorism,” not be given new fear-mongering phrases by a “peace candidate.” The State Dept. is already scrutinizing visas from Moslem nations more closely. Is Paul proposing to toss them all out? And what about US citizens who came from such places — won’t they fall under such blanket suspicion next, even if Dr. Paul doesn’t want them to?
This having been said, I think that the ad could be quite effective for it’s target audience, without even mentioning student visas at all. After all, if the ad is primarily about immigration, and mainly south of the border immigration, why muddy up the point by dragging in “terrorist nations?” Or are we being attacked again by Guatemalan suicide bombers? It actually detracts from the anti-illegal immigration plank of Paul’s platform. It doesn’t fit with the rest of the ad.
One final note — while Paul is obviously focused on Iowa and NH voters right now, is anyone thinking ahead to how any of this might play in California, where I am? It’s less than 2 months off, with registration/party change deadlines a month away, and this is where Paul could use crossover Democratic, third party, and independent voters. While I certainly don’t think RP should alter his views one iota for such voters, I think someone in the campaign needs to pay attention to tailoring the message.
OberonSky
December 30th, 2007 at 1:02 am
I absolutely agree with Mr. Justin Raimondo and I am disappointed by this ad. I speak as an American citizen who originally came to this country many years ago as a student from one of the so called “terrorist nationsâ€. I chose to come to the U.S. Because of its Constitution, and I chose to stay here and become a citizen (legally) because I loved this country for its potential – although sometimes we fell short of realizing that potential as a beacon of liberty.
I am a long time reader of Antiwar.com, and a long time supporter of Congressman Ron Paul ever since I read his articles here on this site several years ago. I contributed several times to his campaign and I do not have regret, however, I do implore him to revisit this ad, specifically, the portion regarding student visas.
Even if this ad was targeted to a certain demographic, pandering was never a tactic employed by Congressman Ron Paul, his message has always been to speak the truth without fear of losing “popularityâ€.
Jed
December 30th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Wow generalize much? Not all people from terrorist nations are terrorists.
rmt
December 30th, 2007 at 1:07 am
I’ve watched the add several times. Maybe I’ve missed something or maybe many here are seeing something that’s just not there.
I didn’t see anything which would restrict legal immigration in any way…I didn’t hear anything which would restrict bright and energetic individuals from contributing and benefiting from their participation in our economy…if it’s in there (and I don’t think it is), you have my apologies, I flat out missed it.
I am sympathetic with the plight of illegal immigrant and can fully understand the economic needs which drives these poor people to leave their homes and families to seek a future here. Based on Dr. Paul’s prior statements, writings and positions, I am confident he is too. In 1988 he expressed favor for unrestricted immigration, a more typical libertarian position, but has modified that position due to the exploding economic burden of illegal immigration over the past 20 years.
I did hear his position with regard to benefits for illegal immigration and the steps he would take to stem unencumbered inflow. I agree with his position without reservation. While it is emotionally difficult, I agree with Dr. Paul and don’t believe we can, with welfare programs here, subsidize away the social and economic ills which besiege some of our southern neighbors. To attempt to continue to do so, jeopardizes the delivery of benefits owed first to the citizens who’ve invested in our thinning social safety net.
I’m also in agreement with Dr. Paul with respect to the denial of visa’s for students from nations which practice state sponsored terrorism. It makes eminent practical sense to restrict the travel into our country, of foreign citizens from nations that provide sanctuary to terrorists and terrorist activities within their boarders. This is precisely where the line must be drawn if we are to genuinely pursue a non-interventionist policy abroad respecting the sovereignty of the internal affairs of other nations.
I don’t want to police them over there and I don’t want police following anybody over here, I guess I’m simply not politically correct enough to accept “Patriot Act” style restrictions here, to ensure the freedoms of non-citizens from nations that support or condone the murder of noncombatants.
My 2 cents, thanks for listening, I’ve enjoyed the exchange so far.
I’m not very political – I’m just happy to have Ron Paul as an option this time around.
Trevor
December 30th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Oh, I missed the list of nations he said he’d deny. Please share more fully the inference you gathered from the Ad…….list the many “nations” you know he was talking about……..please, enlighten us all on what you know he (the campaign was implying)
jeff
December 30th, 2007 at 1:11 am
You liberals are so naive. Don’t you understand that this is an invasion going on? School children are taught in Mexico that the southwest belongs to them. Ron Paul wants to defend the soveriegnity of this great land and you call him a racist. I bet you think Lou Dobbs is a racist too, even though his wife is hispanic. Fools! Good Grief!
Jed
December 30th, 2007 at 1:11 am
I don’t think you realize how many students come here with student visas to go to school. Ending student visa’s to prevent terrorists is similar to ending air flight bacause a terrorist could potentially use it for a bad purpose.
Your rant about stepping over homeless is really pointless.
Butros Dahu
December 30th, 2007 at 1:13 am
This add is pretty stupid. The add stereotypes people from an entire nation as terrorists.
Also denying the citizenship by birth is dumb. The constitution gives that right to all people born in the U.S. are natural born citizens. Ron Paul is a man who claims to adhere to the constitution yet is offering to ignore the constitution on this issue.
Jed
December 30th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Actually he wants to amend the constitution to end birthright citizenship to people who aren’t here legally.
john marino
December 30th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Justin this is add is what Dr. Paul has been talking about all during this campaign, putting America First.Border security is one of his main programs and all and these points have been made many times by him in the campaign. He and Pat Buchanan agree with this add.How do you think we can get votes if we don’t apeal to the concerns of the people.Dr. Paul has talked many times how 15 of terrorists came from Saudi Arabia.He has also stated he wants travel, study and trade with all people.But we still have to protect ourselves first.This is exactly what I expected the campaign to do,have hard hitting adds the last 2 weeks.There is a good stragedy here, tough on terrorists but bring our troops home and save the economy and our own liberties.This is all coming to a head while the others dice each other up.
Isis
December 30th, 2007 at 1:20 am
I have to agree with this Terrorist Nations are not valid. I do not believe the Student Visa Program should be completely halted, but I can understand if more careful screening is implemented seeing as the majority of the people who were here to (allegedly) cause harm were here on student visa’s. We don’t need 100% security, risk is part of living and even if you spent your entire life hiding out in a single room of your home, many things could go wrong a tree could fall on your house, or a fire could burn it down. Life is never without risk, so we must live life and not hide from what might be.
Tim R.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Good for Ron Paul! I don’t agree with him on everything but he is right on the money. We NEED border security. If a country can’t control its own borders it is no longer worthy of being called a country.
We have let millions and millions of illegal aliens into this country and countless administrations do nothing about it. Now we are becoming balkanized and divided, having debates in Spanish (if people can’t speak English they should not be living here, much less voting!)and at this rate we won’t remain a united country for long. Teddy Roosevelt said “there is room for only one language in this country, the English language.” And he also said a “hyphenated American is not an American at all.” We need to stop with all this mindless pandering to minorities and illegal immigrant invaders and stand up for the sovereignty of our nation. How about we form a new WPA in the mold of what FDR did. Only this time we take everyone on welfare and put them to work building a fence from San Diego to Brownsville?
And yes, border security IS a national security issue. People have short attention spans and even shorter memories. In December of 1999 Ahmed Ressam was picked up at the Canadian border, I repeat, BORDER, with a trunk filled with explosives. He was on his merry way to blow up Los Angeles International Airport. More recently, in New Jersey, The “Fort Dix Six” were arrested and have been charged with planning to attack Fort Dix. And guess what? Some of them were here illegally. Several of the 9/11 hijackers were here illegally. So any way you cut it we need to protect our borders. Bravo Ron Paul. How about a Ron Paul/Tom Tancredo ticket?
Mike Kealoha
December 30th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Let’s remember, when we elect a president of the United States, we are NOT electing a dictator. No president can single-handedly enact a law without the consent of Congress.
Instead of arguing over one slide of a much larger ad, we should be focused on larger things that Ron Paul advocates — like abolishing the federal income tax.
In the near term, we probably can’t abolish the income tax without partially replacing it with an alternative tax, but virtually anything would be better than the current income tax, which requires us to relinquish our privacy and our 5th Amendment rights not to be compelled to be a witness against ourselves. This is what makes the federal income tax such as odious tax.
In addition, a superb documentary produced in 2005 (see below), clearly shows that the IRS can not show you the law that makes you or anyone else liable for income tax on your wages!
No candidate is perfect. You can find flaws in all the candidates, but I doubt that you can find an individual who has “walked the talk” and lived the principles that (s)he espouses more impressively than Ron Paul. He has rejected his lucrative congressional pension and returns a portion the his House office budget every year to the U.S. treasury. He is an OBYGN who has years of experience with our health care system up close. Who among all the presidential candidates could be more qualified to speak about health care?
As commander in chief of the military, the president can pull back our military expansion around the world (do we really need 700+ military bases in 130 of 195 foreign countries just to protect us?) … Isn’t it inevitable that our presence in these foreign countries would be considered unwelcome by the people of those countries? … Wouldn’t we feel the same with foreign bases on our soil?
Ron Paul is a most incredible and courageouos person in this day and age and is surely worthy of our admiration and serious consideration as a candidate for president of the United States. If you believe that we are truly a nation of laws, you should support Ron Paul. He is the only one stepping forward and supporting our nation’s “supreme law of the land” — the U.S. Constitution.
To UNDERSTAND the totality and urgency of Ron Paul’s message, EVERYONE should watch the extraordinary documentary called “America:Freedom to Fascism” which was produced in 2005 by Aaron Russo, the producer of such classic movies as “Trading Places” starring Eddie Murphy and “The Rose” starring Bette Midler.
You will rarely find a more honest and easy-to-understand presentation about how our federal government has evolved over the past 100 years. Aaron Russo passed away in August 2007 after a six-year battle with cancer. This documentary is a truly precious departing gift to all freedom-loving Americans.
Watch “America: Freedom to Fascism” FREE at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
OberonSky
December 30th, 2007 at 1:25 am
I found this article on the DailyPaul.com site (supporters of Ron Paul):
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/18489
As for the several issues raised by the ad, the part that I do not agree with is the use of the “terrorist nation” term and its implication. It goes against everything Dr. Ron paul stands for as far as I understand.
rp08orbust
December 30th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Justin, I know Ron Paul respects you, so PLEASE, PLEASE try to get in touch with him about this totally un-Paul, 1984ish, fear-mongering ad.
paul revere II
December 30th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Ron Paul is going too save us all!
It’s not right that they use Anchor babies too invade us!
So all you people who are for it should know, their agenda broader than you know…..
I want too help the Mexicans – but they must be helped where they live- It mathmaticly impossible to take in one group from any country- Have you ever heard of Balkinzation?????
Plus It’s the same Dam politicians that we need to get rid of that purposly caused this mess over the years with there one world Government Ideas.
Ron Paul is correct about everything- IF YOU DON’T LISTEN TOO RON PAUL YOU MAY ONE DAY FIND YOURSELF IN A NURSING HOME BEING SLAPPED AROUND BY AN ILLEGAL ALIEN THAT CALLS YOU GRINGO- MANY OF THEM HATE US AND ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES IS HOW THEY BOOED MISS USA!
WAKE UP YOU LIBERAL BUFFOONS!
One day you’ll wake up and wonder where and when we lost our Freedom.
Paul Revere II
notthewayiwoulddoit
December 30th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Ron Paul seems more like a Paleo-conservative to me like Pat Buchanan than a Libertarian. The issue behind the illegal immigration debate is class warfare in my opinion. It is the inverse of the civil rights movement. What many Americans are doing illegally to people is a step above slavery but not where we should be. The ad is laying the blame on the victims rather than the perpetrators.
http://www.workingimmigrants.com/2006/06/illegal_immigrant_workers_face.html
The ad clearly is going after the WorldNetDaily crowd. They have had articles about terrorist getting nukes in this country or seeking to do so from time to time. Ron Paul needs to explain himself regarding the student visas.
Lucky
December 30th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Justin my man, as a proud member of the RP Revolution, you hit the nail right on the head. Here’s what’s a buzz at DailyPaul.com on the same issue. I’m glad most in our movement are honest enough to constructively critique issues that needs to be fixed in order to move on. And “terrorist nation” is where most of us shudder at.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/18489
cheers, mate. keep up the good work.
PS. though I really do wonder if this is another one of RP Newsletter racist smear-bund of RP personally did not say, but still had his letterhead. though by now, there is no excuse, the campaign being aware of this issue from the 1990′s. Especially considering the fact that it is only 3 days away from Iowa, this is inexcusable. Whoever greenlit this ad, if so without explicit approval from the Doctor should be fired. Period.
Sheeboo
December 30th, 2007 at 1:36 am
I think they will change the ad. It doesn’t sound like Ron Paul to me either. But you have made a mountain out of a molehill. He has enough obstacles in his way as it is. I think you are carrying on like Jane Fonda about this – “absolutely, outrageously, tragically wrong”? Really? Come on.
A lot of the people posting here upset are liberals; they go bonkers if anyone wants to say no to any immigrant legal or illegal for any reason. They want Ron Paul to be Ted Kennedy on immigration and sorry, but he aint. They’ve been reminded he is a Republican and it irritates them. Well, tough.
OberonSky
December 30th, 2007 at 1:41 am
I think this is more about the ideals of the man, no one candidate is perfect and you will not find one that you agree with on 100% of the issues. However, the use of the neo-con-ish term “terrorist nations” is disappointing to come from a man whom we have know not to pander or sell out to gain votes or popularity.
I do not agree that the ones posting or upset are mostly liberal, many libertarians and staunch supporters of Dr. Paul disagree with the “terrorist nation” term and its implication. Sure, immigration is an issue that needs action but the wording of it perhaps does not seem to fit his ideals.
RevMArk
December 30th, 2007 at 1:50 am
I guess terrorism depends on what end of the terror your on. Many think Bush is a terrorist. I do. The wording is strong, but it sure grabbed my attention hard core. One of those “wide-eyed” type things. Could call it “shock” even. Made me stop and think instead of going on to the next commercial or show and forgetting about it. At times, I wonder why we have student visas anyway. I’ve payed taxes my whole life. Money used to build and run public Universities. Yet, someone who hasn’t ever paid a dime can walk right in and use them. While I continue to pay for them. Then, that student goes back to their country to use the knowledge I helped pay for them to get. Then U.S. companies move to their country because they have cheaper trained workers than here. Everything cost’s me, money, jobs. They get the benefit. I don’t. Dr Paul has been straight out asked if debates if “we should take our marching orders from the terrorists”. They’ve stuck him with a label. He needed a counter punch, and a hard one to shake off that label in the minds of the brainwashed voter masses. I think he’s counting on us as knowledgeable supporters to understand that he needed to fight fire with fire this time. So maybe they’ll stop asking him useless questions in a MSM interview and get down to issues.
lester
December 30th, 2007 at 12:54 am
I gave $300 of my hard earned money for this?
Mark Sunwall
December 30th, 2007 at 1:54 am
Sheep? Bhaaa…as in humbug! The real sheep are the people who are not taking any political stand while the US goes down the tubes! If anything Paulists are too passionate and chaotic. And its not a matter of “charisma” although his being a decent person doesn’t hurt. We like his adherence to principles. Its not like Evita, or Mao, or Che where the person is so “cool” you take any guff they can dish out. Believe me, if he deviates too much from principles we’ll drop him like a hot potato. (What constitues “too much” accounts for the soul-seaching on this thread.)
ken
December 30th, 2007 at 2:01 am
It is a clumsily written ad, but I’m willing to give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt here.
Apparently someone told the good Doctor that one of the biggest concerns Americans, including me, have is immigration and he’s trying to work that notion into his policy framework. I’m sure he’ll get better at it.
It’s not “racist” to want to protect your country and culture doofs.
ken
http://www.laserguidedloogie.com
Scott Vines
December 30th, 2007 at 2:25 am
Selling our higher education to anyone willing to pay the price, regardless of nationality, is a good thing for America even if they return to their own countries. Think about it for a moment. When other nations become more prosperous, we all benefit. It’s not a zero-sum gain. When other nations become more literate and innovative, they produce more. When they produce more, they trade. When they trade, Americans buy. When Americans buy, they have more capital goods with which to produce. When they produce, they have more to trade. When they trade, they have more capital. It’s a positive cycle.
Education is a product like everything else that sells for a price. America is not suffering in the global marketplace because it’s selling its higher education to anyone willing to buy it. It’s primarily suffering because of its fiscal and monetary policies which make our products less competitive in the global marketplace. We need less government and sound money. I truly believe if we achieved those two things, America would prosper like it never has before.
Jay
December 30th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Well put sir.
I am a Dr. Ron Paul supporter and disappointed to see this coming from RP campaign. They should fix it right away.
Andy
December 30th, 2007 at 3:02 am
A foreign student visa is a privilege and not a right. The United States is entirerly within it’s rights in witholding any visas it sees fit.
Jeffrey
December 30th, 2007 at 3:04 am
No more “professional ads”!
Have more contests on youtube for god’s sake- much better than these negative,droning plastic-wrapped electronic brochures.
Focus on the positive- yes we have to protect our borders- but this ad reminds me of the tactics the neocons use to push their agendas.
Steven
December 30th, 2007 at 3:16 am
I generally agree with what is stated in the ad. How about no visas for terrorists. I mean, the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were generally known to the CIA and FBI, yet they were let into the country legally. That’s the real issue here.
John Smith
December 30th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Ron Paul has the same immigration position as Lou Dobbs.
His views on global warming and evolution indicate a strong anti-science bias.
He appears to have no problem with state – as opposed to federal – restrictions on individual freedom.
There are many others who oppose the war in Iraq. I can live with high taxes, as long as I am not paying for unnecessary war, or dinosaurs like Ron Paul.
dietwald
December 30th, 2007 at 2:37 am
Justin — I agree with you that the imagery and tone, and the wording 'terrorist nations' is stupid. However, a libertarian argument can be made in favor of immigration restrcitions (see H.H. Hoppe)
rmt
December 30th, 2007 at 3:42 am
I think some have read a great deal into this add which simply isn’t there. Some heard the neo-con scare tag “terrorist nation” and immediately lumped the entire Muslim world under that banner. Its clear the Justin was confused as he assumes that Paul might be advocating thousands from the “Middle East, North Africa, and the Muslim countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, and elsewhere” be rounded up, their visas revoked and deported.
I have no doubt than many Americans equate “Muslin Nation” with “Terrorist Nation” just as Justin worried they might. That’s just plain sad, It says a lot about how we’ve been conditioned since 9/11. I don’t think most critical thinkers especially those who has followed Dr. Paul’s campaign will be likely to fall into this intellectual trap. I think Dr. Paul, more than ANY other candidate has been careful to avoid such demagoguery. He alone has refused to pander to the fear of “Islamo-facism”
But many American voters ARE scared, they do not understand how Dr. Paul’s non-interventionist policies will make them safer in the long run and in the interim they are willing to trade freedom for security. How, if we don’t fight them over there, are we going to be safe over here, they might ask. Not only have they witnessed the horrific events of 9/11 but also the senseless bombings by sleeper cells in Indonesia, England and Spain and the Middle east. How, if we don’t go after them over there, how will we ever be safe at home without the Patriot Act, illegal wiretaps and surveillance? As Justin points out, there are thousands of Muslims here on study visas alone.
If Dr. Paul does not answer that question, he cannot win.
His add was perfect. His answer was, and is simple. We will do our due diligence before entry to our shores and we will not allow citizens from nations that SPONSOR terrorism to reside or go to school here. Does Saudi Arabia sponsor terrorism? Does Indonesia? Does Malaysia? I think after dialog with Iran and Syria we may find they do not as well.
Dr. Paul can’t hide his policies just to sound politically correct – the voters won’t play that game.
If you’ve got another plan lets hear it -
Jerry
December 30th, 2007 at 3:45 am
Fine! You should go back with him to his country,the one he loves.
America has become weaker because of so many “Two Flag Carriers”.
You can help your friend carry his “TWO FLAGS” if you want.But! if I were you,I`d keep one of them here…Do you know the one I`m speaking of?
Jerry
December 30th, 2007 at 3:49 am
I am American,and,I approve this message.
Elizabeth
December 30th, 2007 at 4:03 am
Jerry
You are absolutely right.
People are so caught up with global warming they cannot see that the real distruction of our planet is being caused by over population.
Keep on taking these people and they keep on breeding. We have to restrict population growth, not take in their kids at the cost to the Western taxpayers.
As we in Britain discovered – they come in and they blow up your trains and buses and produce 5 children to your one.
The second top babies name in Britain is now Mohammed.
Frighten you it should.
How do you think the Albanians became the majority in the Serbian heartland of Kosovo?. Ask a Serb how its done.
Not only is Ron Paul right but immigration into the west must be stopped altogether.
Our very survival is now at risk.
Get real you do-gooders!
Our schools now have 100 languages spoken in a single school.
Reportedly more of our schools now have English is a second language than do not.
Go Ron Go.
Elizabeth
Ginger P.
December 30th, 2007 at 4:04 am
I do think it’s a bit much for countries who knowingly harbor and finance terrorism i.e. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to expect student visas for their citizens. ALL the 911 hijackers were here on visas that had long expired.
The past two administrations left an immigration mess, and cleaning it up won’t be pretty. These students can go to school in Canada or something. I am an American citizen and live here with my husband. It’s not that bad.
Greg
December 30th, 2007 at 4:06 am
1/3 of all illegal immigrants in the United States are here on expired visas….they don’t leave.
hardtruth
December 30th, 2007 at 4:18 am
What do you expect from tha alpha-male idiocy of US pick-your-war-chieftain faux-democarcy? Paul is dodgy on climate change too. North Americans are like sheep yearning for a sole strong leader who is right on everything. Not gonna happen, dimbulbs.
Either Paul believes this crap or he’s cyncially pushing dangerous idiot-buttons for votes. Either way, its a sad indictment of him. But as Paul remains the only Republican capable of saving the Disgusting Nation from its murderous abasmeents and restoring what passes for law so watcha gonna do?
rhys
December 30th, 2007 at 4:43 am
I don’t think we should allow people into our country from terrorist nations, but I actually think that Paul is playing a game here. What is a terrorist nation?
* Cuba
* Iran
* Iraq
* Libya
* North Korea
* Sudan
* Syria
These are terrorist nations, but even denying student visas will not mean that the US couldn’t accept other types of visas or political refugees.
rhys
December 30th, 2007 at 4:47 am
I posted this somewhere else, but I can’t see it.
Terrorist nations is a legal description and is voted on by Congress. It is only as arbitrary as their votes.
* Cuba
* Iran
* Iraq
* Libya
* North Korea
* Sudan
* Syria
These are terrorist nations, but even denying student visas will not mean that the US couldn’t accept other types of visas or political refugees.
dave
December 30th, 2007 at 4:56 am
Dude,
the terrorists already ARE in charge of our schools. ask your kids if they are hearing in school about how MANDATORY public service is a good choice. the Good Doctor will end federal brainwashing of OUR CHILDREN and stop engaging in expensive wars against NOBODY. Maybe our kids won’t have to CHOOSE to be DRAFTED if we make something other than oil our priority. We spend $12,000,000,000 every MONTH in Iraq. Every month??? We could end homelessness, even put every child in america through college for TWELVE BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH.
Mexican kids are taught the SW is theirs? They’re right, IT DOES NOW!! Don’t think so? The treaties are signed and nobody invited you… Take a look the shiny new NORTH AMERICAN UNION coming soon (2010, just google it and see)
Save your kids and your country: VOTE
rhys
December 30th, 2007 at 4:58 am
I can’t understand this. Terrorist nation is a very narrow group of tiny countries. I don’t know how many students we have from Sudan, but I don’t think we are going to go without future MD’s just because we have a temporary moratorium on accepting students from there.
Everyone here is over-reacting, just like all those atheists over-reacted to Paul’s comment on the theory of evolution. Paul has a very sophisticated philosophy. He is not only principled, but a very good politician. He knows how to use emotionally charged words to the right people at the right time – but he is no flip-flopper, and he means what he says. This is a calculated attempt to effect a key constituentcy with powerful words – I’m not claiming he is lying, but he is using legal words that have high emotional impact. He does this often, and is probably how he got most of the attention that he deserves in this campaign.
Brian Otten
December 30th, 2007 at 5:14 am
Yeah. Apply this policy globally and, I guess because of Timothy McVeigh and The Weathermen, I would have been denied my student visa to study in the UK for my Masters degree.
What the hell is a ‘terrorist nation’? And how do we prove ‘state sponsorship’ (even Mark’s ’5 countries’ post above just restates the official US policy – and we all know how good that intelligence is)? Does it not count as terrorism if the state sponsoring it considers itself to be involved in a war (as the US does with the razing of Fallujah or the Israeli government does with its military action in Gaza and the West Bank)?
This blog entry addresses the language used in the ad, people! The ad could have stated the policy of increased checks or limits on student visas in any number of ways, many of them put forward in this blog. It didn’t, Ron Paul stated he approved it and we need to call him out on it as participants in the electoral process who sincerely want to vote for someone decent for a change.
Ra
December 30th, 2007 at 5:20 am
This is a great ad.
You sound like a Saudi sympathizer.
Rich Beecher
December 30th, 2007 at 5:25 am
30 Dec
Justin,
Did you contact Dr. Ron Paul or his campaign to voice your objections to this ad prior to making a public issue of it on AntiWar.com? Did they fail to respond? Did they respond in such a way to make it worthwhile to bring it up in this manner?
I disagree with Dr. Ron Paul on maybe 2-5% of the issues. While I will discuss those areas of disagreement, I won’t make headlines of them, particularly in the public arena.
Other than that, keep up the good work.
Best Regards,
Rich Beecher
Bulldog Manifesto
December 30th, 2007 at 5:39 am
A good argument can be made that the USA and Israel have also been terrorist states.
If we want to be honest here, terrorism has been used by many.
Shock and Awe anybody?
tz
December 30th, 2007 at 5:42 am
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.
Where on the typical University campus will they learn about liberty (No Smoking anywhere!), tolerance (No expressions of Christianity allowed), and fair play (secret “dial RAT-FINK” to complain about a fellow student).
Then they can go outside to their jobs and deal with the IRS.
I think the NAFTA/WTO and the UN, or even the H1B “guest worker” program would be worthy substitutes in this ad, but the rest of the criticisms are spot on.
Sean Scallon
December 30th, 2007 at 4:42 am
After seeing the way the 9-11 terrorits used student visas to enter the U.S. I want stricter controls on their usage. Ron Paul does too and has supported legislation to do so. This commercial is non inconsistent with his views.
However, critics of the commercial have point when it comes to the phrase "terrorist nation" Define "terrorist nation". Only three or four nation-states I can think of one could say has governments that supply and fund terrorists or paramilitary groups or have been behind terrorist acts Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea. We're now supposedly buddy-buddy with Libya.
But what if a terror attack in the U.S. came from Pakistani decended British citizen who came to the U.S. on a student visa or a Maghreb decendent who came to the U.S. from France? Would Great Britian and France be labled "terrorist nations" then? Obviously not. Controls and monitoring have to be put on student visas but no one nation or people should be singled out.
So you're right this ad is pandering to a group of voters. It's also politics 101. Like it or not immigration is a big issue in Iowa whether or not you're a former Tancredo supporter. One of the reasons it became a big issue is because of 9-11. If Paul's campaign team in Iowa think an ad like this can put them over-the-top and get them into the top three in Iowa so he can be taken seriously as a national candidate and people come off the fence to support him, then it has to be done. Anyone who thinks this is not a dirty process in some ways is terribly naive. Maybe it will work. Maybe it won't. But none of this will matter if Paul doesn't finish well in Iowa. At least he's not talking about nuking Mecca.
It feels like the shoe's on the other foot now. Some paleocons last week were complaining about Paul's reference to Sinclair Lewis and comparing fascism to Christianity (which Paul did not do) and was defended by the paleolibertarians. Now the paleolibertarians are attacking Paul and the paleocons are defending him. At least this shows that the Paul movement is not a cult. We have a very diverse group of people supporting him and we're not going to agree on everything. But hopefully we can keep the focus on what we agree on and that is supporting Ron Paul.
Jed
December 30th, 2007 at 4:57 am
Generalize much? Nonwhites for Ron Paul! Get some counseling.
bud
December 30th, 2007 at 6:21 am
Right On! Ron.
As an immigrant, I completely support this ad. Those who want to come to the US should apply for visa and get in line like everyone else.
E
December 30th, 2007 at 6:41 am
Yeah, because banning them will only make them hate America more because America forces its culture on them but doesn’t let them partake in it. Let them come, then maybe people who hate America won’t hate it so much, and those who love it can get out of the crappy place they’re in.
Vince Daliessio
December 30th, 2007 at 5:43 am
I agree that it is a bit 'over the top', and pretty transparently tuned to snag a handful of Tancredo supporters. But the substantive points made about entitlements for illegals and birthright citizenship are longstanding planks in the Paul platform. I think his other statements on immigration, that immigrants are being scapegoated for the failing economy, and that the issue would be moot, or nearly so with a prosperous economy still stand as his definitive position. I wouldn't abandon ship over this one ad, but I sure would write to the campaign about it,
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/contact/
Sheldon Richman
December 30th, 2007 at 6:50 am
Hear, hear, Justin!
Nicole Hansen
December 30th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Mr. Raimundo, you are sadly uninformed and unaware of what you are ranting about.
I am Muslim, and a naturalized citizen of Egypt by marriage to an Egyptian, in addition to being born American. Obviously, I know lots of people who have been beneficiaries of such visas and even more troubling, tourist visas, who have gotten them solely with the intent of working here illegally and/or paying or tricking an American woman into marrying them in order to get a permanent residency visa (I don’t fall in that category, my husband and I had been married and living in Egypt for nearly five years before we even applied for his immigrant visa). I don’t know anyone who came here with an intent to commit terrorism but certainly many came here to break these other laws.
Frankly, it is embarrassing to me as an Egyptian and very troubling to me as an American as well. I applaud Ron Paul’s stance on this issue and am offended that you defend the appalling behavior of some people who wish to manipulate our visa system and I know my husband, who recently applied for US citizenship, would agree as well. It is easy to spout off about something that doesn’t effect you and how people regard you and people you know, but as someone who is very much in the thick of these things, I have to say you are completely wrong.
You need to do a little research on what you write before you write it, as any good journalist or blogger would do. You spent paragraphs and paragraphs speculating, when with some quick research, you would have found this:
HR 488
Carter M
December 30th, 2007 at 7:07 am
What I want to know is: who is this imposter impersonating the known libertarian Justin Raimondo.
Justin, I’ve watched the clip, then read and re-read your post about it. I’m a) puzzled, b) flabbergasted, c) dissapointed, d) all of the above. If you chose d) all of the above, you win a prize, consisting of an essay by Murray Rothbard, Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State –
Ron Paul reflects this (libertarian) postion perfectly in this video.
Howie
December 30th, 2007 at 7:22 am
I’m an Obama supporter in Miami who had a positive image of Ron Paul until I saw this ad. All I knew about him before was that he was antiwar and therefore I liked him. After seeing that racist garbage, I won’t ever think the same of him. I don’t care how antiwar he is, I would never support a candiate putting an ad out like that.
Pat
December 30th, 2007 at 7:22 am
In those terrorist nations, is Israel on the top of the list?
Get real Raimondo. No wonder why Garris does not have a “Ron Paul” section on your site. You guys, at anti-war, are showing your real colors.
Daoud Ali
December 30th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Well, that seals it for me, friends. I know fear mongering when I see it. I’ll have nothing to do with Mr. Paul despite agreeing with much of his platform.
Doug in Indiana
December 30th, 2007 at 7:30 am
I am surprised at the wholeheartedly (once) unAmerican flavor of this ad. It is an endorsement of even more of the cancerous growth of federal police organization and probably its arbitrary powers to enforce such a policy. Border police by their nature are the worst of the lot. They routinely detain travelers, most often rudely, asking pointless personal questions and engaging in unconstitutional searches of personal property, whether you are citizen or not. Just for background, my grandfather was a Dutchman living near Toronto in 1912. He found a job in Niagara Falls N.Y. and moved there with the family for a couple of years. There were border guards but there was hardly a question asked. Of course the difference these days is that there is a lot more at stake from out of the government coffers, and then there’s “terr’ism”. Poor excuses for an emotional outburst against ‘them’, and an attempt to control movement that will likely fail antyway.
uerelo
December 30th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Agreed. The last sentence “no student visa from terrorist nations” killed everything. I have HUGE problem with this sentence. I am a Ron Paul supporter, but this is UNACCEPTABLE!!
Daoud Ali
December 30th, 2007 at 7:37 am
BTW, much respect to you, Mr. Raimondo for having the guts to call it like it is.
Stan
December 30th, 2007 at 7:45 am
I keep reading it over and over again in comments – “This makes Ron Paul look like a racist…”, “black…”, “mexican…”, “muslim…”, “illegal immigrant…”, “terrorist…”.
Folks, it IS all about race. It always has been. It’s the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. Those that argue that America was built by immigrants are only half right. The other half of that statement is WHITE immigrants built America. But there are those that have worked hard since 1965 to make you think otherwise.
America was a predominantly White country until Emmanual Celler and shabbos drunk, Ted Kennedy passed the 1965 Chain Immigration Act, which limited White immmigration to this country and promoted everything else. Coupled with the civil rights act, affirmative action, Brown vs. Board, etc., “the tribe” has managed to darken this country which brings along with it confusion, miscommunication, fianancial burdens, violence and decay. Has America gotten better since then? I say no. A White society sent men to the moon. This brown society can’t even feed or house itself.
It IS about race. The hispanics have ‘La Razra’ (The Race)and MECHA, the blacks have the NAACP, the koreans, chinese, pakis, indians etc. all have business and fraternal organizations that cater to their racial makeup exclusively, for the benefit of them only. But God forbid a White man or woman would found something exclusively for White people and the charges of racism and exclusion whine like an air raid siren through the media across the land and laws are leveled to wipe it away.
There is one group that plays both racial and religious sides of the fence. They comprise about 2% of the population and yet are over-represented in all the key chokepoints of government and media. They are the driving force in what you read, see and hear on a daily basis, shaping your consciousness and unconscious mind. They are the masters of deception, through which they do war. They try to blend whith Whites, to steal White achievements, power, whatever they can get their claws into. And when they make mistakes, it’s ‘the whites’ who get the blame. They are sometimes called neo-cons or ‘experts’, pollsters or editors, judge or congressman, DHS director or head of the federal reserve. But at the end of the day they are jews. And they are controlling you and the downward spiral that America is now being sucked into faster and faster on a daily basis for their benefit.
It is about race. It is about cleaning up this country or being homogenized into a mullato land of prolatariot consumers with no past and no future. Just servants of the kosher controlling cabal. It’s up to you.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 7:46 am
As long as it’s a CUTE illegal alien slapping me around in the nursing home, I won’t mind ….
Jason Ditz
December 30th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Thank God somebody finally said it. Ron’s position on immigration is positively atrocious and unworthy of the fine positions he takes on virtually every other issue of note.
Ron
December 30th, 2007 at 7:49 am
“Illegal” immigration is any immigration that does not conform to current law. It begs the question: what is it about the law that prevents these (mostly Mexican) people from immigrating legally? Why do they accept the risk of crossing the border without necessary papers if all they have to do is conform with the law. Is the law, perhaps, irrational and inhumane?
I know of an American who had to move to Canada because, after 9/11, his Canadian wife was not allowed to visit her birth country and then re-enter the U.S. Her only choice was to visit her relatives in Canada, remain there, and have her husband permanently join her there.
I know a young man who found out at about 21 years of age that he was brought into the U.S. illegally from Mexico as an infant. He spent his life thinking he was an American citizen. He had a good job, was about to get married and buy a house, but then the Social Security Administration caught up with him he had to quit his job, forget the house, and find a job, any job, that would pay him in cash. His only other option was to go to court and hope he would get a sympathetic judge that would cut him a break. If he failed in his legal attempt to change his status, he would be deported to a country he had never known.
Ron Paul is dead right about most issues he talks about, but he is very short sighted on this one. Rather than focusing on enforcing current law, he ought to be talking about what the law SHOULD be so the good, hardworking, tax paying, immigrants could get in more easily and stay to become new Americans.
This ad is not worthy to be shown. Come on, Doc, show some real leadership.
Tess
December 30th, 2007 at 7:51 am
California is like a little Mexico, and personally, I am tired of my tax dollars paying for illegals, and not having those dollars spent on veterans, and American citizens. If people from other countries want to live here by all means they better start obeying our Country’s laws, and going through the proper channels. Last time I checked illegal immigrants are committing a crime, and we really need to stop this, we cannot afford it. I am 100 percent behind Ron Paul on this, we have to be tough on this issue, we have to cut spending on these illegals and make it harder for them to come here and get entitlements/benefits from American tax dollars. We are going broke.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 7:53 am
After defending Paul against all sorts of smears, I have one criticism — this is a mountain? Seems more like a molehille to me.
Jack
December 30th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Ron Paul Rocks!!! Once again some fools want to throw in the race card. California has already been destroyed by illegal immigration. We don’t need it to happen to the other 49 states. No welfare, no medical, no schooling, no birth right citizenship, no nothing for illegal immigarants except deportation!!!!!!!!
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Believe me, they won’t stop asking him baiting questions about his foreign policy — indeed, the reference to “terrorist nations” will only add fuel to the fire.
Chuck
December 30th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Since when is not providing a taxpayer subsidized education “victimizing”?
Jack
December 30th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Furthermore, F the North American Union and the New World Order!! God bless the Texas patriots who stuck it to the NWO by stopping the NAFTA Super Highway. Power to the people and down with the NWO. Hail to the new revolution!!!!!
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 7:58 am
I agree. But the principle of fairness should also apply equally to everyone, regardless of what country they were born in. Aside from which, the entire notion of collective guilt — implicit in the concept of “terrorist nations” — is profoundly un-libertarian, and opens the door to the War Party.
Jack
December 30th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Join the revolution…vote for Ron Paul!!!!!!!!
Larry Kincaid
December 30th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Could it be that they are taught the truism that much of the “SW” was basically “taken” by force by the US from Mexico in late 1830′s into the ’40′s? That would be different from what American schoolchildren are taught about, say, Chistopher Columbus “discovering” America, now wouldn’t it? Something to ponder…
andy
December 30th, 2007 at 8:00 am
I guess no candidate is perfect but Ron Paul is probably the closest.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Oh please: if *I* am “smearing” Ron Paul just because I question one part of one ad — which, I believe, is playing in Iowa right now — after writing many thousands of words in his defense, then I must throw my hands up in despair and proclaim: “So be it!”
Jason Ditz
December 30th, 2007 at 8:10 am
I’ve seen very recent pictures of California, pretty sure its still there
Josh L.
December 30th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Agreed, Justin. There is no such thing as a “terrorist nation,” only a “terrorist government,” and as it stands, few if any of the latter were ever fairly elected. There is no reason to punish completely innocent people for the wrongdoings of their (usually unelected) governments. I am a big supporter of Ron, but he has really dropped the ball here. I hope this ad gets pulled soon.
Jack
December 30th, 2007 at 8:17 am
It’s still there but the state’s infrastructure is in shambles due to the mass illegal immigration. I agree with Tess; like millions of Americans we are sick and tired of spending our hard earned money to educate, house, and feed illegal aliens.
Tikhon Gilson
December 30th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Ron Paul is a faithful Rand-style "Objectivist," i.e. laissez-faire capitalist. He hates the working class in all countries, with the blind hatred of the true plutocrat (wanting overt rule by the rich).
Paul only opposes foreign military adventures so he can use the US military at home, to mow down unions, "illegal aliens," and other types of working class people. Ron's fangs and claws are starting to show. 'bout time.
Jack
December 30th, 2007 at 8:20 am
For all of the uninformed who think Ron Paul is out of line with his ad, I suggest you watch Immigation By The Numbers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwsrt2tlzcU
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 8:20 am
See what I mean, people? I rest my case ….
WD
December 30th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Dr. Ron Paul is my choice for president. These nonwhites turn their nations into sewers and now they want to do the same here. Every observation of their primitive, violent, hate-filled societies has proven that they are not compatible with a modern intelligent nation such as the USA. An even greater threat to us are the Talmudic neocons that will not rest until all of the goyim are enslaved or just killed outright. Do you want your children to serve these murderous beasts? Vote Ron Paul to save YOUR FAMILY!
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 8:29 am
As I said, I’m a writer, not a party-liner or a political activist. I don’t feel obligated to contact the Paul campaign before I criticize them, nor am I obligated to keep my criticism private. Finally, a single blog entry does not amount to making headlines.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 8:30 am
You’re missing the point: the ad says NO visas for ANYONE from a ‘terrorist nation.’ So there’s no reason to “get in line.”
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Well, I guess since Egypt is not included as a “terrorist nation,” but Saudi Arabia is, then you can breathe easy. But what if you are from Saudi Arabia, want to study here in the US, aren’t a terrorist, and want to be entirely and completely legal? According to HR 488, that is not an option.
Robert Brager
December 30th, 2007 at 7:51 am
This is what we raised $19 million for?
What a colossal waste of expenditure, both of elbow grease and cash.
I'm done with this candidate. His election wouldn't change a thing.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 8:54 am
This has nothing to do with open borders: please re-read what I actually wrote.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 8:55 am
That’s a mistake.
Fernando Leza
December 30th, 2007 at 8:57 am
What the hell is a “terrorist nation” anyway?
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 8:59 am
We do have a Ron Paul section: the archive of his many columns, which we have carried regularly. Our “real colors” are anti-interventionist, and we don’t discriminate when it comes to criticizing political candidates — and that means any and ALL candidates.
Mark Stromberg
December 30th, 2007 at 9:01 am
It’s All About Iowa
This ad probably just got him 3,000 votes in the caucus, about 20% needed for a shocking showing. The ad does not rule out the possibility of students receiving some form of visa just not a “Student Visa†and frankly if you come from a country with ties to terrorism why should you not pay for the additional back ground check needed before entering.
Concerning Murray I believe he also once said that if libertarianism is ever going to win in US elections it will need votes from Mid-West housewives. Do Mid-West house wives want students from terrorist nations going through a more rigorous visa process? I hope you’re smart enough to know the answer.
I suspect this ad just closed the deal with many of the East Iowa Catholics that got Pat Buchanan the 2nd place finish in 1996. Reports are that Ron is strong in the rural areas and of course he’ll do well near the colleges. Ron is about to shock the political landscape and give libertarianism the greatest stage since 1776 and you guys are complaining about an ad running in Iowa? Remember what Murray said about the Libertarian Party as it committed itself to irrelevance? And you Justin should know better.
Remember people US elections are all about 30 second ads. I hate it as well, but until Justin Raimondo and the Antiwar.com staff are producing the evening news (soon I hope) we have to deal with it.
I love still love you guys at Antiwar.com, but please try to keep your eye on the ball.
Mark Stromberg, El Dorado Hills, CA
Tess
December 30th, 2007 at 9:01 am
I also want to add, I am a minority, served my country in the United States Air Force, paid my way through college working 2-3 jobs at a time, no help from the government. I didn’t grow up with a whole lot but with good family values, and parents that encouraged us to be Independent, and never say I can’t. I am not the smartest person, but I have common sense, and I say we can longer afford to support illegals, or other countries and their people. In order for our Country to stay sound, we have to make some drastic changes, and illegal immigration has to addressed. Oh, and by the way California is not doing so hot, in San Bernardino, California there are American citizens living in a tents because they have lost their homes, jobs, and can’t get any type of assistance, but yet our government is housing illegals and providing food stamps for them, something is very wrong here. These kind of stories don’t get in the main stream media either.
Gordon
December 30th, 2007 at 9:03 am
It’s Ron Paul or Police State. Your choice. All this other talk is just side issues because the majority of the sheep don’t know what’s coming.
Google video: Alex Jones Endgame
It’s his newest video.
Spend an hour and a half watching this then see what you think.
the-problem
December 30th, 2007 at 9:06 am
What the hell is a “terrorist nation†anyway?
Ask a Salvordan, Nicaraguan or Chilean and see what he says. The answer might suprise you.
salem s
December 30th, 2007 at 9:06 am
What is terrorism?!Which nation is a terrorist nation which is not?!Who is a terrorist ,and who is not?!Who is the victim of terrorism ,who is not?!What actions constitute terrorism ,which not?!
Is causing the death of hunderd of thousands innocent people by sanctions is terrorism?!,or is it worth it?How about invading a weak ,no threat country?!or how about sending missiles and bombs rainning down on villages from 50,000 feet.May if we do not see it,or hear it ,it doesn’t exist!
brad smith
December 30th, 2007 at 9:10 am
HI, I’m a big fan of Anit-war it’s a great site. I also agree that Justin has the absolute right to take a hard look at this add. However, he should have done a little homework before writing it. This is NOT a new position for Paul. it is NOT pandering in any way. Just check out the house bill.
HR 488 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 488
To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 29, 2003
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Mr. DUNCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
——————————————————————————–
A BILL
To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003′.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF STUDENT AND DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISAS TO ALIENS WHO ARE NATIONALS OF SAUDI ARABIA OR COUNTRIES THAT SUPPORT TERRORISM OR ARE NOT COOPERATING FULLY WITH UNITED STATES ANTITERRORISM EFFORTS.
(a) LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF STUDENT VISAS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien may not be granted a visa for study in the United States under subparagraphs (F), (J), or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act without review by the President if the alien is a national of Saudi Arabia, a country designated under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a country that supports acts of international terrorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.
(d) LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISAS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien may not be granted an immigrant visa under section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)) relating to diversity immigrants without review by the President if the alien is a national of Saudi Arabia, a country designated under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a country that supports acts of international terrorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not fully cooperating with United States antiterrorism efforts.
END
Love your site and keep it up.
Ron Paul President 2008!
Tim
December 30th, 2007 at 9:16 am
This is a brilliant ad. “Terrorist Nations” is controversial enough to get the ad replayed for free on the news – and he goes from being seen as weak on terror to being critized for being too tough on terror and immigration – right before Iowa votes. Simply brilliant.
Anyone who has looked into the issues knows Ron Paul is the best, but this ad ought to get some casual NeoConned Republicans to give him a look as well, at just the right time.
This ad furthers the chances of peace, which is something AntiWar.com ought to support. It’s politics, and it’s brilliant!
kent
December 30th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Following that, you can see the same method applied to Global Warming by Al Gore. The entire presentation is bogus.
Carol Watson
December 30th, 2007 at 9:23 am
I’m with Dr. Paul on this, although the blanket statement about students from ‘terrorist’ countries is a bit less palatable in my opinion. However, during the Cold War we weren’t accepting students from several countries either, so however unfortunate, it certainly wouldn’t be new.
However, to say America’s policy of requiring foreigners to have the permission of the US (or any country) to enter is somehow ‘rascist’ is a complete joke. Are you saying that Ellis Island was ‘racist?’ If that’s so, the govt should shut it down and not honor it with the title of Museum and National Historical Site. I expect to see you out there picketing real soon. My ancestors entered this country legally, obeying the laws of their new land, and were proud to do so.
As someone who has worked frequently for long periods of time in other countries, I have always been required by those countries to undergo health checkups, police background checks, review of finances and job references and referrals (to make sure I was not taking a job away from a local), all this before being given a visa to work in the country. Was that ‘racist?’ Those very same countries represent a goodly number of illegal aliens here in the US. Their own countries have immigration policies similar or even more restrictive than those of the US, but only the US is ‘racist?”
Every country, every country has legal requirements for foreigners to enter and work! Try going to live and work in, say Canada, if you don’t believe me. First, they don’t accept illegal aliens, and you can fill out one of their questionaires and see if you are qualified to be allowed in to work. I had a friends who, after screaming they were ‘moving to Canada’ found out that Canada would not let them in. Another ‘racist’ country, huh? By your definition of racism, they ALL are.
kent
December 30th, 2007 at 9:24 am
So…you’re not in favor of open borders?
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Don’t put words in my mouth: I haven’t attacked Paul’s general position on immigration. I’ve objected to ONE aspect of his position, involving student visas. Period.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 9:36 am
This isn’t about illegal immigration: it is about foreign students applying for LEGAL visas that would enable them to study in this country.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Earth to Jack: No one is in favor of illegal immigration, including me. My criticism involves Paul’s position on the issuance of LEGAL visas for educational purposes.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Exactly.
Dave
December 30th, 2007 at 9:40 am
OK, so now a website called antiwar.com is condemning Ron Paul on his immigration stance, which by the way, has been published on his website, ronpaul2008.com since the beginning.
How ironic that the ONLY anti-war candidate is being slammed by a website that bills itself as “antiwar.”
Gene
December 30th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Thank you. This is exactly the strategy being used for this Iowa ad. 30 years in politics, Paul is no neophyte.
theoldman
December 30th, 2007 at 9:46 am
As one who was alive during times of Mc Carthism and a member of an active and conservative family of both democrats and republican all of them said MC Carthy was un-american.
They had a House of un-american activitys that indeed was un-american that using FBI went from one grade school to another touting the red menace.
And then we had the John Birch society and it seems the dead birchers are rising from the grave at the insistance of Ron Paul,
I can find no real Libertarian attributes in Ron Paul, close yes but not real action in trying to implement them in the place where real politcs is doen, D.C..
When Ron Paul can claim the far right Christian Zionist and the owner of Blackwater as some of his sponsors that alone told me to watch out but with this add I know what I was watching out for, another demigogue spouting idealogues of racism and failed monetary beleifs combined with John Birchers, patriotic jingoism and Mc Carthy in new clothes.
J. E, Hoover would of loved this guy.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 9:48 am
The real irony is that the only antiwar candidate is echoing the War Party’s rhetoric about “terrorist nations” — and targeting the citizens of those countries when they want to come to the US for entirely legitimate purposes. This undermines the candidate’s antiwar stance, as I pointed out above.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 9:49 am
I disagree.
salem s
December 30th, 2007 at 9:50 am
The ad implies :
Guilt beforehand,
Guilt by association.
And since students,or people from so-called”terrorist nations” would be potential terrorists,what about the ones already here?should they rounded up in put in the detention centers as was done with people of Japanese ancestry?!
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Again, I am not accusing anyone of racism. I am merely contesting the idea that a foreign student from, say, Saudi Arabia, should not be automatically excluded from attending school in the US based solely on his or her nationality.
SW
December 30th, 2007 at 9:52 am
“OK, so now a website called antiwar.com is condemning Ron Paul on his immigration stance, which by the way, has been published on his website, ronpaul2008.com since the beginning.”
Actually there is almost NO DEBATE on Paul’s immigration stance, or even tightening up on student visas. There is sharp disagreement on the NeoCon, Lowest Common Denominator phraseology.
Why can’t people see this?
I see the bill singles out Saudis only?
Jim Erickson
December 30th, 2007 at 9:54 am
I agree that lumping illegals in with carriers of student visas is an outrageous jump in logic that is pure Neocon. Shame, Dr. Paul!
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Banning all students from “terrorist countries” hands the War Party a weapon they are sure to use. Far from ensuring peace, it only ensures that entire nations are going to be dehumanized, demonized — and, eventually, targeted by Washington.
Havatu
December 30th, 2007 at 9:56 am
If anyone wants to eliminate terrorists on airplanes the best thing to do would be not allow our government “leaders” to fly out of Washington DC
Chris Dowd
December 30th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Frankly, I am surprised at this ad and position. It smells like the sissy cowardly silliness that has set in among the reich wing of America which they confuse with being “conservative”. Pathetic and disgraceful.
Jason Ditz
December 30th, 2007 at 10:02 am
I didn’t mean to ascribe the above to you, that’s my position, I’m just glad to see somebody talking about the immigration issue qua Ron Paul, even if only part of it.
kent
December 30th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Wondering if there are any real libertarian organizations left that haven’t sold out on issues like immigration? Seems like many have gone to the “dark side” on this. IHS? FEE? Its been so long I haven’t keep track.
Anyway, there is lots to support in Justin’s antiwar.com (even if it doesn’t fit my definition of libertarian). He’s been right on the money throughout the entire build up and execution of the Iraq war.
salem s
December 30th, 2007 at 10:14 am
The Ad is disheartning coming from Ron Paul.I was hopping that he would not resort to use rhetrorics that appeal our fearmongring inner sleves.I thought Dr,Paul would be the one candidate who would not resort to demagoguery like the rest of the candidates.
By the way,the number of people from those countries we fear most has very much decreased for many years now.
Linda J
December 30th, 2007 at 10:18 am
If abortion is “debatable,” let the woman have the freedom to debate it with her doctor. Libertarians–ha! Phony stance for men who want to allocate power to themselves. It’s a medical procedure that Dr.(?) Paul objects to. What other medical procedures does he object to? Guess we won’t find out, unless he finds a target audience to pander to.
As for the question of a 8-month fetus being aborted? I believe that is up to the woman involved. What if the fetus is abnormal? Freedom for women involves their right to control their reproductive processes. But libertarians apparently only believe in freedom of mens reproductive processes.
Mark
December 30th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Many of the 9/11 hijackers use student visas to enter the country IIRC.
Kim
December 30th, 2007 at 10:21 am
The United States had a population of approximately 76 million in 1900, and approximately 301 million in 2000. The only state that has seen negative population growth in the last fifty years has been West Virginia. The states with the largest population growth rates are those that have supplied plenty of cheap land.
We’re at a crossroads in population growth in this country– further expansion lowers the amount of arable cropland in the U.S. Presently approximately 3.7 billion people around the globe are malnourished, and the worldwide average cropland per capita is 0.25 hectares.
In the U.S. we presently enjoy ample food production and export, based on our cropland of 0.7 hectare per capita (approx. 1.7 acres). In the next fifty years at our current population growth rates (fueled primarily by net immigration) our base of arable cropland will decline towards 0,5 ha per capita and this will have a very real effect on food costs, supply, and quality.
Simultaneously, and more importantly, massive amounts of now arable land will by then become unfarmable– their aquifers having been depleted. Water now pumped from wells will have to be replaced by other sources, or major sections of farmland in the southwest will be taken out of the picture. Agriculture consumes 70% of fresh water now produced from all sources, and when these aquifers are depleted, the only way to replace them is with desalinization and pipeline distribution– this is *many* orders of magnitude more expensive and will directly effect water costs for consumers and indirectly the costs of foods. Even without *any* population growth in this country in the next fifty years, the depletion of these aquifers will become a major destabilizing influence.
All this bloviating has a point. We as a people, like all people, are not independent of natural economic and physical forces; we have a responsibility to plan for our future and part of this planning must take into account the fact that 1) industrialists no longer need to import cheap labor for the local (now nearly non-existent) industrial base, seeing that it was much easier for them to export their factories to the subsistence labor markets of the far east, and 2) eventually we won’t be able to feed ourselves, much less the people we do import, and 3) all of my admiration of Mises and Hayek aside, game theoretic simulations of transnational issues always point out the Achilles’ heel of global free trade– the fact that you can induce a nation over time to become dependent upon oligarchies of foreign suppliers who may then extort supranormal profits by way of manufactured disruptions to the supplies of critical commodities.
No, I do not like the commercial. I believe it is much too negative. I do however, support the continuation of the United States of America as a sovereign, prosperous, constitutional republic of inalienably free men; free legally and economically as well as socially. Dr. Paul is the only candidate with half a clue as to what sort of drastic reforms are necessary at the federal level to insure this possibility. It is my hope that this one sub-par political ad will not blind people as to this fact.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2007 at 10:23 am
We aren’t talking about a “more rigorous” procedure to get a visa, but a complete ban on students from “countries with terrorist ties.”
dave potts
December 30th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Justin, you have hit the nail on the head here. I am a fervent Ron Paul supporter, and the nationalistic and xenophobic undertones of this ad run counter to every single libertarian instinct I have. Thanks for your critique, I hope you’ve forwarded it to campaign HQ.
Don
December 30th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Wow, that Dana’s sure got a crush on Ron Paul, eh?
jp straley
December 30th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Hurrah for Nationalism! Justin, regarding the RP video ad, you apparently dislike the idea of keeping students from terrorist nations away from our campuses. Really, it only inconveniences a few thousand people who can go to other country’s schools if they want. Are they genuinely injured? Will they hate us any more or any less?
What it does do to is give a leg up to US students who should be studying in those disciplines.
Ever been to a US engineering school lately? I have, and its Chinese and etc.
The truth is, a little bit of xenophobia isn’t such a bad thing. Keeps your guard up, and that has (internal) benefits for the heritage peoples of our country. It’s our posterity, we may well want to keep it!
JP Straley
Don
December 30th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Hey, Linda…
How about… one minute before birth? Should the decision to kill the “fetus” still be entirely the woman’s? You’re completely ridiculous. The question is whether or not viable, unborn babies (about half of which are female, by the way) have the right as individuals to not be slaughtered. The question is: “When do individual rights begin?” You’re just rarin’ to err on the side of murder, ain’t ya?
“Medical Procedure.” God, you creep me out.
Howie
December 30th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Ron Paul’s people have littered the Miami landscape with hundreds of cheesy Revolution posters and stickers. Since the Repulibcan debate at U of Miami, up and down US1, from downtown to Coral Gables, whenever I now see the fascist/patriotic/almost sounds like a Ford commercial phraseology attached to this garbage, I will think of this hate-filled commercial. Ron Paul’s Revolution appears to be nothing more than a racist anti-immigrant witch hunt disguised as some hip new antiwar ideology.
dave potts
December 30th, 2007 at 10:40 am
You obviously don’t understand what libertarianism is all about, do you? Racism is the lowest form of collectivism. You’re judging people not on the basis of the individual, but on the basis of genetics, or where they grew up. Ugly. Really ugly.
CMC
December 30th, 2007 at 10:43 am
What is more balanced, fair-minded, moral, and less mean: collectively punishing terrorist nations by banning their students from coming over here to study, or collectively punishing terrorist nations by invading, bombing, blockading, etc. etc. etc.? (Would it make any difference to your answer if the students could audit the courses via lectures and other course material pretty much available for free via the internet?)
Immediately following 911, some commentators (Sowell, Col. David Hackworth), advocated just such initial, preliminary steps. I did too. I imagined the following type of scene back in those nations: Mother of banned student to friend; Well, he was at a wonderful school in the United States, and he was even talking to companies about a good job, but then those stupid boys in al Quada ruined everything. Now the US has thrown all our students out and banned us. Well, what could they do? They are not so stupid as to invade Afghanistan like the Russians….stupid Osama, has ruined it for so many….
CMC
December 30th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Zero safer? Absolute zero?
Thomas Sowell, 2 days after 9/11:
“Those who make being morally one-up on “our society” their top priority will have to face the painful costs of this self-indulgence. For example, those who are for flinging the borders open to all and sundry from everywhere will have to face the consequences of letting in people who can destroy us from within.
“Most of the immigrants who come here from the Middle East, for example, may be fine and decent people. But their presence provides communities where those who are neither fine nor decent can blend in unnoticed, until time to do their dirty work, as in the previous bombing of the World Trade Center…”
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2001/09/13/a_new_pearl_harbor
This is not to say you are for open borders, but you are making “being morally one-up” your top priority. It strikes me as a bit unreal. If you said Ron Paul’s no Visa’s policy is not perfect but it is the least bad amongst the candidates, and hence, among his other positions, the overwhelmingly best overall policy advocated, then I could say, yeah, sure, you’ve got a point. Without that, you’re just shrill.
Dr. Jared Butler
December 30th, 2007 at 11:06 am
It’s unfortunate that this commercial has to play to such uneducated and misinformed crowds. Terrorists use student visas because they have the smallest amount of background checks and requirements necessary to get into the country. An actual student from these countries could apply for a work-study, or one of dozens of other visas which allow them access. The student visa is a bad idea in general and should be removed completely, even though that is how I originally came here.
CMC
December 30th, 2007 at 11:07 am
So answer the question I placed above: what’s worse, banning students, or war with it’s “collateral” damage? Doesn’t it say something about our rulers that they didn’t even try the minimally problematic –legal, humane, ecomically viable, pro-US citizen collective punishment of reducing immigration, but went right for war –and that still, six years on –SIX YEARS ON!– still no confirmation that we got the guys who did 911?! Think man. What direction do you want to go? Human collective punishment or unjust war? If you’re objection is “false dilemma,” then tell me again by what right or necessity my nephew might lose a place at State U in favor of diversity?
Chris
December 30th, 2007 at 11:07 am
The fact that a libertarian is calling for protecting our borders is in line with a comment made once by the late, great libertarian economist (there is no other type of great economist) Milton Friedman. He noted that a 3rd world country cannot exist next to a welfare state with open borders. The resulting hoard of refugees streaming from one to the other will eventually destroy both. As for terrorist states, I would eliminate ALL visa’s for any country which has shown that they support, or even tolerate terrorism or radical islamics in their country. That would eliminate just about all of the Arab countries, N. Korea, Venezuela, and most liberal newspapers here in the U.S.
peace
December 30th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Now, I am so sorry to predict that Ron Paul will not be elected president.
CMC
December 30th, 2007 at 11:13 am
If we were a Christian nation, and unjust and endless war followed by endless occupation of other countries for harboring terrorists (or even for not harboring terrorists) had been dismissed out of hand like it should have been, then, yeah, sure, you’d expect the moratorium idea to be part of a package presented by those pandering to our worst instincts. As it is, no, we’re not, and, no, the moratorium idea is actually one of the most humane counter-tactics currently on offer. Don’t you see that?
CMC
December 30th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Usually. Is this to say none of them get HB-1 visa’s? Marry? Stay over?
As for not saying, as he said to Russert, he deserves some wiggle room.
CMC
December 30th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Open season?! That’s rich. Now who’s smearing whom?
Open season is a hunting term, connoting killing. How is not letting a foreign kid attend your school killing him?
You are losing control of your rhetoric.
Tim R.
December 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am
It is simply amazing that such a basic issue has aroused so much controversy! What can be more basic than border security? Ron Paul is 100% correct. For those of you who think that securing our borders is somehow racist, xenophobic or whatever, I honestly think you guys are nuts. How about you go home and take all the locks off your own door, better yet, take the door of its hinges. Unless you are willing to do that, don’t be a hypocrite and tell us we can’t close our own proverbial door and secure our nations borders against foreign invaders.
Glen Litsinger
December 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Considering the (generally) high quality of this debate, it is obviously a debate worth having — AFTER Ron Paul is elected. Remember, the president can’t do much of anything by fiat, at least in a Paulian presidency; the likely Democrat-controlled Congress will not go along with this (unless a Democrat is elected, of course). For better or worse, though, RP has consistently said he would secure the borders, so this ad should come as no surprise. And by the way, the devil or the angels may lie in the details, of which this ad gives no clue.
Ron Paul is a “conservatarian”, not as pure as some would like, but as close as we’re likely to ever see to a pure and honest libertarian on the national stage. My support for him will not waver due to one issue (let alone one ad) that revolves around a legitimate concern for our national security.
CMC
December 30th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Really? All of us? It’s news to me. Oil money wouldnt’ have any influence at all? And couldn’t RP veto something that went too far? You count the votes on this or just making things up now? Give us the run-down, please.
bryanD
December 30th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Very astute ad. His positions regarding national sovereignty have not been made clear enough to the average Republican voter, so fleshing out is most welcome.
And as much as I admire Raimondo, thank GOD Ron Paul isn’t hewing to any doctrinal pacifist line and passing Pepsis around the game room while doing the Twist in socks and cardigan.
He really WOULD be at 4%.
Tim R.
December 30th, 2007 at 11:32 am
A terrorist nation is one where terrorists usually come from. Most Islamic countries have large amounts of either terrorists or terrorist sympathizers so how about we cut off ALL immigration from Muslim countries for a few years. I know I know, I’m a xenophobe and an Islamophobe. I’m also a realist.
I mean come on people, 15 of the hijackers on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia and we are still letting them in here? Its as if we are in a house, we know people from the house accross the street want to kill us but we keep inviting them in. It makes no sense! Wait a minute, it makes no sense UNLESS we are living in the Alice in Wonderland world of “political-correctness.”
CMC
December 30th, 2007 at 11:33 am
So “no visas for ‘terrorist’ nations” is not debatable? Then what are we doing here.
Now you are just begging the question. You’re falling apart.
Ungood German
December 30th, 2007 at 11:38 am
If by “terrorist nation” we mean a nation whose people loudly and wholeheartedly support the killing of innocent and helpless civilians in other countries for political advantage, then the United States needs to be pretty high on that list, if not at the top.
kent
December 30th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Half of my neighbors are American, so I guess our borders aren’t secure. Should do something about that (and don’t laugh, there are plenty of Canadians who’d love to keep Americans out). I’m for getting away from such statist solutions, not creating more of them.
Dave
December 30th, 2007 at 11:43 am
That staffer’s name was (and still is) Eric Dondero, who by the way, is also running for Paul’s House seat in Dist. 14, TX. Dondero was featured in a question by Tim Russert during the Meet the Press interview. Russert failed to point out that Dondero was a candiadte for office. In doing so, Russert violated federal election rules.
You won’t find this information on the Internet. That article was published well before the Internet had taken off. I received this information by writing a letter to Paul’s congressional office in TX. Suggest you do the same. Paul is such a standup guy that he refused to name names back then and he still won’t do so now, especially with Dondero running for his seat in the House.
Dig up the facts before you speak. Don’t believe everything you read.
Bill Woolsey
December 30th, 2007 at 11:43 am
I wouldn’t assume that “terrorist state” means states on the current state sponsors of terrorism list.
paul revere II
December 30th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Many of the real terrorist travel around using student Visa’s
The 911 hijackers also used student Visa’s
Why should we reward certain nations who have a track record like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and a few others…. The send terrorist around the world using student Visa’s
Everything you think you know is a lie!
Ron Paul can save us all!
Mexicans should have a revolution in their own country to fix it!
We can’t absorb the third world especially from on single nationality!
Why are they leaving the borders open while bitch’en about terror!?!?!
Why do you need a National RFID card!
Wake Up America!!!!!
Micah
December 30th, 2007 at 11:51 am
It is a molehill. Even if the ad runs as produced over my objection, it is a tempest in a teapot. Ron Paul remains the only candidate who will begin the hard work of reigning in our far-flung military and championing the cause of individual liberty, and a bad ad won’t change that.
Thanks for keeping the fires burning, Justin, and having the courage to say what you think even when it goes headlong into the prevailing winds. You’re allowed to disagree with a campaign decision without undermining the campaign.
Robbess
December 30th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Is this at all true..?????…..Doesn’t seem to fit the Ron Paul Profile..????>..
Don’t know until he himself comments….
R
CMC
December 30th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Who said Britain was a terrorist nation? Like distinquishing British subjects on the basis of likely Islamic terrorist sympathies is an insurmountable problem. Pick a random hundred out of the Boston phone book and they probably wouldn’t do so bad. Remember: even Brits aren’t entitled to study here. So what if they erred on the side of caution? What a nightmare; the kid would have to stay in Britain.
Oh, I’ve completely changed my mind. You’re right. It would be tragic and disgraceful. Only one thing to do: Invade Britain! They’ve got nukes!
RLP
December 30th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Looks great to me, his position on this issue and the 2nd amendment are what made me look into him as a candidate… the more I saw the more I liked him.
Micah
December 30th, 2007 at 11:57 am
What is your option? Go Rudy?
If this is the worst mistake the campaign makes during the primary season, Paul is still the lone advocate of liberty at home and non-intervention abroad.
You can’t have been more than a marginal supporter to begin with if this is the straw that breaks your camel’s back.
brad smith
December 30th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
HI, the point that Ron Paul should not just single out student visas from a few countries is a good one. However, student visas are abused it’s a fact.
The elite colleges and universities lobby aggressively against clamping down on student visas because the foreign students are so profitable. They swell the numbers of graduate students who then bolster the universities’ applications for federal handouts for “research.” For example, Boston University now has 5,240 foreign students, researchers or professors.
It’s a well-kept secret how much money the elite colleges receive outright from the federal government, in addition to billions of dollars in all sorts of student financial aid. Here is a sampling of the latest available annual figures: Johns Hopkins $793 million, Stanford $391 million, Harvard $349 million, Washington University (St. Louis) $347 million, MIT $301 million, Yale $300 million, Emory $248 million, Cornell $247 million, Duke $218 million, and Northwestern $204 million.
At least 40 percent of foreign students in the United States currently receive financial aid, and major colleges recently announced that they will substantially increase aid to foreign students. Think about that when the students in your family are going into debt because of exorbitant tuition rates.
Foreign students on untracked visas fit right in with the prevailing college ideologies of multiculturalism and diversity. As enforced by the campus thought police, multiculturalism means that all cultures (except our Western Judeo-Christian civilization) are equally good, and diversity means preferring immigrants from non-Western countries.
Having read this I think an arguement could be made that Ron Paul’s problem isn’t that he bans some applicans but that he isn’t banning all of them. I for one don’t believe that my money should be used to further this scam.
Ron Paul for President 2008!
Micah
December 30th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Can I haul you into the Doctor’s office and have him remove your heart – of course killing you – and claim it a medical procedure? Clearly, no.
It is in fact debatable, and should be wrestled with at the most basic political unit possible. I personally find abortion objectionable, but support leaving the question up to the individuals affected, so long as we’re not talking about a viable fetus able to survive outside of the womb. That being said, I’m willing to let those states or localities with differing opinions decide for themselves what standard they will apply. We do not need a central bureaucracy to decide for us or protect us from ourselves.
Justin Speers
December 30th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Gutsy blog Justin. That needed to be said.
Paul’s immigration stances are strange to me. And this student visa thing is downright troubling. It’s the one major issue I’ve had with his campaign, and for some reason he’s choosing to emphasize it right now. Who knows why.
Joe
December 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
A few words of widsom, Justin, from the man who arguably invented modern politics:
“But since I intend to write something useful to an understanding reader, it seemed better to go after the real truth of the matter than to repeat what people have imagined. A great many men have imagined states and princedoms such as nobody ever saw or knew in the real world, and there’s such a difference between the way we really live and the way we ought to live that the man who neglects the real to study the ideal will learn how to accomplish his ruin, not his salvation. Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good.”
If you’re boy refuses to throw the base some red meat from time to time, then he’s a wanker, not a serious candidate.
Disgraceful? Certainly. But also a prerequisite to gaining any power here in the real world, where the only way to keep your hands spotless is to refrain from doing anything.
MetaCynic
December 30th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
The add is not only disgraceful, its foreign student visa statement is politically unnecessary. If the ad is targeted for the concerns of the Iowa voters, then omitting the offensive student visa line will not at all affect the message. How much contact has your average Iowan had with students from 3rd world countries? I very much doubt that fear of foreign students keeps Iowans awake at night. What they have personal experience with through soaring crime and taxes is illegal Mexican immigrants. The ad addresses these fears and concerns, and rightly so.
Ron Paul has repeatedly denied being an isolationist. He has called for allowing trade with, travel to and cultural contact with people from all over the world. He wants America to lead through example and not force. Denying visas to students from so called terrorist countries is unprincipled and undermines his freedom message.
lester
December 30th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I live in massachusets. if students from terrorist countries were not allowed to BU, MIT, Harvard and the like we would cease to exist
CMC
December 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
So now nationality (culture, language, religion, family-clan-tribe connections) is nothing? How perfectly atomistic are we to be required to treat people? You are binding us to policies based on utopian, idealistic, politically-correct, wishful, thinking.
That scare quotes these people close scare quotes are not breaking any law is beside the point. It’s long been a standard that immigrants not brake any law in their very application process. What, we should give them a medal for “NOT breaking the law”? Gee, thanks for not breaking our law. Welcome to the US. Please continue to not break the law. Thank you thank you thank you!
MetaCynic
December 30th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
If what you say is true, Brad, then Ron Paul would be entirely within his principles to deny, not visas, but American taxpayer tuition subsidies to foreign students. It makes no sense to withdraw all foreign aid and then turn around and subsidize tuition for foreign students. However, if those students are willing to privately finance their education, then they should be granted visas.
dodsworth
December 30th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Justin:
Given your support for Buchanan, why are so critical now of Ron Paul for doing the same thing? You didn’t seem at all ashamed of Pat’s views on immigration.
Ron hasn’t hid his positions on this issue (including visas)….so please dont’ tell me you expected better. I don’t like the ad either but why didn’t you, as I have, make your complaint privately? With only four days to Iowa, this is very bad timing for the best candidate in the race, warts and all. Ron is being hammered hard lately and this only piles on needlessly.
R. Nelson
December 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Get a grip, libertarians. President Paul will be unable to pass everything you’d like him to, he’ll have to compromise on others, and if you go nuclear over something like this then I can’t imagine the fury of a movement scorned.
Yes, as several posters have noted, there are nations out there that sponsor terrorism. Why pretend otherwise? And yes, inevitably, an influx from those countries will include a certain percentage of ne’er-do-wells. How much risk are we willing to take is the real question here, not whether Paul is compromising some “we are the world” fable.
You’d think people on this site would have some understanding of stereotyping. As Sowell points out, stereotypes usually have a basis in fact. Thus if a little old lady is mugged, the first suspects you should pursue wouldn’t be five-year-old kids or gramps, but young men. If there were a string of crimes by a bespectacled fat white guy with a beard, I wouldn’t be surprised to have a lot more attention from the cops for a while.
Keep your heads screwed on, people. This teapot tempest is hardly Ron Paul standing up suddenly for the Patriot Act.
Stefan Molyneux
December 30th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Sadly, if “covert attacks on other nations” is the definition of terrorism, then America is a terrorist nation – adding the concept of ‘collective guilt’ to that means that Ron Paul will have to deport every American, including himself…
Perhaps to Mexico? [:D]
brad smith
December 30th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Good Point. However there are more ways to skin a cat than one. This policy would benifit the US in two ways. 1) less taxes 2) increased security. I also listed in a previous post the house bill that explains a little more of the reasons behind the security issue. I don’t completly agreee with it but it is what it is.
Martin
December 30th, 2007 at 11:43 am
I agree. I'm still a Pauli, but the position on immigration, especially student visas, offends my libertarian sensibilities, and I'd be happier if he toned it down, even if it wins him a few more votes. The position on monetary policy doesn't appeal to me either. Criticize the deficit spending and explain how it's really printing money to spend and imposing a hidden inflation tax. That's fine. Don't end every discussion of the subject with talk of a gold standard. Paul's Rothbardian understanding and advocacy of a gold standard doesn't win many votes and seems positively flaky to economists with a better understanding of money and credit.
Jed
December 30th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
It is linked to from the Ron Paul web site http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
so he definitely “approved this message”
Jed
December 30th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
are they all from terrorist nations? Students from all countries on visas may need to be scrutinized… not just ones from terrorist nations.
salem s
December 30th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Should we start bombing those nations,kill them all ,and let God sort them out!
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/23/polls/index.html.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_terrorism_(term)
http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html
John Smith
December 30th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Clearly there is a fundamental divide in the Ron Paul campaign between (mostly) coastal libertarians and paleocons. The libertarians oppose government in general. The paleocons want to use government (state, and where necessary national) to further their right-wing agenda.
The libertarians, many of whom are from the tech sector, should study the example of Bloomberg, who comes from the same roots. In office, he pragmatically runs government:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12302007/news/regionalnews/big_apple_of_mikes_eye_363020.htm
The paleocons most certainly are racist and anti-semetic, as is shown in several posts above. Their aganda goes way beyond immigration. It is a rehash of Father Coughlin.
There are better ways to oppose the Iraq war, then to follow the tech Libertarians, who really don’t understand what they are talking about, or the paleocons, who know exactly what they are doing.
pappy
December 30th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
If terrorist acts are perpetrated by the same groups (Saudi Arabians, Turks, Kosovo Albanians, Bosnian Muslims, Egyptians, Syrians, etc.), and they use student visas to enter the U.S. under the pretext of studying, then a more stringent policy needs to be in place to prevent such acts. If Ron Paul suggested as much, I absolutely do not see anything wrong with this policy, as long as it prevents 9/11 type attacks.
Now I think when main stream Americans learn basic geography and basic history of the world perhaps then they will know the difference between terrorist nations and nations that don’t care to be subjugated by the so called only true democracy in the world. Someone here posted a list of terrorist nations; but failed to list the main culprit Saudi Arabia, they are the solely responsible for financing all the terrorist groups around the world, and they promote the most radical Islam, Wahhabism.
If on the other hand we want to prevent immigration perhaps we need to stop supporting regimes such as Pakistani, Saudi Arabian, Egyptian, Bosnian, Kosovo Albanian, Albanian, etc., and do everything in our power to change those regimes, then perhaps the citizens of those countries will not look to get educated in the U.S. or other countries, perhaps they will stay in their own country and get an education.
This is not about Ron Paul; this is not about Iran, or Iraq, this is about addressing the right issue which nations are the biggest exporters of terrorism? Perhaps Justin could address that issue and then put appropriate blame on the country that is the most responsible for financing and exporting radical Islam, which leads to terrorist acts against all that oppose them.
Dave
December 30th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Absurd! The vast majority of Ron Paul supporters I’ve met are ordinary people who are sick and tired of the status quo of war, more war, and even more war, unsound currency and a major erosion of our civil liberties.
David
December 30th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
You know, I’ve gone about a hundred comments in, and I don’t think anyone has had the insight to point this out yet:
Denying student visas to terrorist nations was NOT the overarching idea of the ad. The point was to assure voters that Ron Paul would keep our boarders safe, and end the welfare state for illegal aliens, which I for one wholeheartedly support. Justin is right when he calls Paul on the bizzare and seemingly misplaced “student visas” bit, but let’s remember that that’s not the POINT of the ad. I’m willing to forgive it as some over-zealous campaign ad writers.
Ron Paul ’08
dodsworth
December 30th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Nonsense. Bloomberg doesn’t have a libertarian bone in in his body. He is the worst sort of Nanny stater. He makes Huckabee look like a moderate by comparison….and that’s saying a hell of a lot. I am very antiwar but would never vote for him, except possibly if he was at the bottom of a Hagel ticket.
dallastexan
December 30th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
So you’d rather pay $1.3 trillion to fight terrorism in Iraq, or clamp down on illegal immigration and not allow a few people from terrorist supporting countries in ours?
Why don’t we let the people that want to spend the unnecessary trillions pay for it all if that’s what they want to do.
John Smith
December 30th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
The paleocons want war – they simply have different enemies from the neocons.
As for the monetary system, do you really want to eliminate the FDIC if there is a banking crisis?
John Lowell
December 30th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Justin Raimundo is simply pointing out a glaring contradiction in Paul’s overall foreign policy line, one which serves to leave serious people scratching their heads as to anything else he might have to say. In the present environment where jingoistic terms such as “Islamo-fascism” are bandied about so carelessly, how is it that one who purportedly has a grasp of the captive nature of US Middle Eastern policy becomes comfortable with similar language himself? Has he truly understood the underlying problem or understood it only partially. Those are legitimate questions. And I say this as one not in the least perturbed by Paul’s recent allusion to Sinclair Lewis when asked about Huckabee’s Christmas time TV ad. Huckabee’s cozy relationship with ReichsChurch stalward, John Hagee, alone justifies the remark. But here we have something paralyzingly stupid from Paul, and one must ask what does this portend.
salem s
December 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
A Terrorist nation is where terrorists come from!
1994: Jewish settler kills 30 at holy site:http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/25/newsid_4167000/4167929.stm
http://theunjustmedia.com/the%20real_significance_of_baruch_goldstein.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/685792.stm
Bulldog Manifesto
December 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Actually, you can split the remaining “half” into two groups, one being “whites” and the the other half being forced immigrants (i.e. slaves)
CMC
December 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Oh now that’s just f-ing BS. See Steve Sailor on invade the world – invite the world. Sam Francis. Buchanan. Taki. The neocons unanimously poo-poo’d the idea of implementing any ethnic profiling or other collective enforcement vis a vis immigration, visa’s, etc., no matter how tame. It would have been a violation of our ideals, they said. Against our better natures, they said. No, what we’ve got to do is bomb and invade the F out of these places, with all the perfectly foreseeable death, mutilation, resentment that would cause. Why?! Because it would have gone against a plank in their multi-culturalist agenda.
Get real man. On this point you act like we’re getting on a slippery slope and a potential fall into a dangerous, immoral foreign policy. We’re already there! At worst this is like substituting ice cream sundaes for booze. We should do so well as to get off the war junk and on to this tame visa banning crap.
“Instead of instituting rigorous ethnic profiling of all people whose origin and appearance would give grounds for suspicion, the adminsitration has preferred to pass the PATRIOT Act, an impossibly unwieldy set of measures that intrude into the private lives of library patrons, e-mail correspondents, and elderly DAR members boarding airplanes.” Respond and engage me in debate and I’ll tell you who wrote that in 2005.
Kent Cowan
December 30th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Paul’s entire immigration policy is a glaring contradiction to the rest of his campaign, those surprisingly few see it.
CMC
December 30th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
More BS. Who said a total moratorium on student visas? He said terrorist countries. Whatever that means. Let’s call it all muslims, for the sake of argument. You’re telling me places like Silicon Valley, and Redmond Washington, and companies like IBM would just, like, shrivel up and blow away unless some unknown number of muslims came over? Where were computers invented? Silicon chips? Software? Tell you what, if the entire tech GDP and market cap of all muslims worldwide, India included, exceeds the tech GDP and market cap of Virginia, no, better yet, F-it, Maryland, I’ll eat a falafel every night for a month.
Louise
December 30th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I understood RP’s stance on immigration, I agree with Justin Raimondo that it’s a poor decision to portray this possible policy solution in such negative and almost militant terms, I’m horrified at the tone.
Couldn’t they have shown happy workers receiving their work permits and providing the services that the free market of America wants from them? A friendly, positive outcome? A win/win?
As a green card carrying, legal immigrant who applied and was approved for a living/working visa and ss card, I’ve always resented illegals and amnesty programs. The problem here is that the American government seems to penalize those who play by the rules (you can’t believe the scrutinizing and red tape bureaucracy involved immigrating or obtaining study visas) and rewarding those who are smart enough to just do it the most expedient and illegal way…wrong message to those (suckers?) who take the time to play by the rules.
Maybe there is some good marketing reason for this harsh attitude, we’ll see, but sincere RP supporters like me who have overlooked a few other irrational attitudes, like creationism belief for example, are worried.
I do think RP has every appearance of a man of intellectual brilliance and personal integrity and has wonderful ideas on national operations and he’s the only candidate who may be able to get us out of wars…but really, showing our neighbors being apprehended and patted down, yuk, they are just people, for god’s sake, trying to escape their own desperate circumstances. America seems to want and need the services and labor they provide, the message should have been how to streamline the qualified to a legal status…legal guest worker or whatever. RP, himself says over and over that we should talk to people and trade with them. I heartily endorse that but the ad went way sour, please pull it.
immigrant
December 30th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I am an American who can vote but was once an immigrant. I, like many of your parents and ancestors came to this land in search of hope, tolerance and freedom to express. I am appalled by this ad because of he student visa bit. Also I am appalled because it comes from a man who I believe is the last hope for America. This will not stop me from voting for the doctor because I already know what he stands for. What I am concerned is the pandering. If there is a fixed definition of “terrorism” please publish it. Do we categorize a whole nation terrorists for policies and actions of certain individuals. I think if coming over and bombing other countries is a definition then again we do top the list. Also what I am appalled at is the intolerance towards LEGAL immigrants that is shown in the comments. Do these people forget where there ancestors came from? or do they assume they were all born on this piece of land. Last bit of history I read was that the Indians inhabited the land before any of your ancestors put their foot here. It is also tomfoolery to think the US can maintain itself without Legal immigration. The students who come here eventually become doctors like me and engineers. I can for a fact tell you there will be a shortage of doctors to treat us if students from other countries are stopped from entering the US. Sad Sad to say the least. Why cant the last bit be removed or an explanation be put forth by the doctor?
Eric Martin
December 30th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Guys, cool it.
Ron is an immigration restrictionist. Always has been. (And BTW not everyone who points out the cost of immigration (as opposed to its benefits) is a “racist.”)
Never demagogued about like Tancredo up till now but hey, with Tommy boy out of the race his best shot for a significant showing in IA or NH is to make a play for the lou dobbs vote. Frankly, I wished he’d hit this theme earlier and more consistently. If he had we probably wouldn’t be talking about a “Hucklebee surge.”
BTW he also opposes NAFTA, GATT, etc. So if this cramps anyone’s “free trade” ideology, well you haven’t been paying attention.
turbo
December 30th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
cuba what you kiding , what cuba did to you
javart
December 30th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Ah – finally people are starting to see the whole Ron Paul picture. By appealing to the emotions of a war and poverty stricken populace, Paul has been able thus far to pull the wool over peoples eyes as to his domestic agenda. Paul is anti abortion, anti brown immigration (not one word on white immigration, no border wall around the east coast) anti health care, anti welfare, anti tax for the rich. He is an architect of reagonomics, if you are a Paul fan you either dont know what reagonomics is or are a fan of the military industrial complex, anti education, anti affirmative action and pro war on drugs, all of which have decimated our poor and middle class opportunities for equality. Not to mention the terrorist wars, coups and interventions in Latin America during the reagan administration, same as what is happening in Iraq, but much more clandestine. Look past his rhetoric and look at his past policies, voting record, and personal beliefs on these issues(use the interweb). And by the way, he doesnt believe in evolution either, so if you are into dinosaurs or science it is time for a head-check.
Rick Cain, Tulsa, OK
December 30th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Ron is correct. The 9/11 attackers all had student visas and were from terrorist nations (Saudi Arabia & Egypt).
Straight and to the point, no hidden racism like Tancredo’s silly xenophobic screaming (ironic since Tancredo is an italian name).
Joe
December 30th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Yes, I pasted “you’re” where I should have typed “your,” and yes, I understand the difference.
Michael Toth
December 30th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
It amazes me just how Ron Paul’s message can be so misrepresented. Student visa should not be given to people who mean us harm. The trick is who decides which nations they are. Remember the only people the terrorist nations will let out of their countries are most likely those who mean us harm. People who are looking for freedom are not let out.
Carol Watson
December 30th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Justin, sorry, I wasn’t clear. I was referring to remarks made by other posters, both here and on other blogs, who keep bringing up this cry of “racism” every time illegal aliens are criticized. It has the same tune as the automatic cry of anti-Semitism every time Israel is criticized.
ongho
December 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Two observations:
1) Conservatives tend to be inherently racist, because conservatives are inherently selfish (ingroupers). It’s not surprising that Ron Paul’s pandering to America’s rednecks draws support from conservatives — but it amusing to see Paul contradicting his own stated principles.
2) The immigration debate essentially boils down to white people who try to blame their own problems on brown people. The most numerous and ardent anti-immigrants are those Americans who are white, uneducated, and blue class and who like to bully people who can’t defend themselves.
And let’s not kid ourselves, the “illegal” factor is merely used an excuse to avoid coming out of the closet as an overt racist. 99.99% of those who claim they are concerned with the “illegal” aspect of illegal immigrants are in reality more concerned about the “immigrant” part. What a joke.
On the whole, America would probably be better off keeping the immigrants and encouraging the racists to emigrate somewhere else. Immigrants have better work habits, that’s for sure.
John Smith
December 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Clearly the RP campaign needs to sort out its identity. You sound like someone who would be most comfortable with the open protectionism of Buchanan. This is not a small difference with the Libertarians. For them, protectionism is not simply an interference with the free market; it is (horror of horrors) a tax.
Dave
December 30th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Huh? Paul is an advocate of Mises economics, which is the precise opposite of “Reaganomics” also known as Keynesian economics. You have exposed yourself as an idiot.
Dave
December 30th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
You sure sound like a racist to me.
Brent
December 30th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
He is certainly no Ron Paul supporter, otherwise he’d at least understand your concern rather than restoring to name calling. Looks like one of those people who want to sabotage Ron Paul supporter’s appearance.
Carol Watson
December 30th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
They are not ‘immigrants.’ They are illegal aliens. There is a huge difference between the two. But the spin is in and keeps getting parroted, I guess. Try calling them what they actually are instead and see how well your argument fits. And you need to look up the dictionary definition of ‘racist’ to see just how ridiculous your epithet hurling is in this context.
Brent
December 30th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
You don’t read.
theoldman
December 30th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
My whole disagreement with Ron Paul is tthat he is lying through his teeth about;
Firstly,they are not wars but part and parcel of what has been an ongoing active foreign policy for as long as he has been in office and Iraq is only one of many such occupaitons, a policy even as President he could not change and he knows it.
The second is his talking of placing the US currency upon a Gold Standard and while it may, extremely slim chance of happening, be done(if the rest of world agreed to same standard) the ensuing devestatoion of such a move would slide the whole system of exchange from wages to ways financing would be structured loan financing, to internatioal payments, that the Depression of 30′s would pale in comparison.
In actuality the implementaiton of a constantly flexing buying power of the Amero for domestic usage and a Gold backed International Securitys as Surety is just what he would have to do.
I have actually talked to grown men and women who think they would have gold coins in their pockets.
Ending Iraq conflict is one thing he cannot do even as a President.
An act that he cannot do without dismantling Congressional and Judicial branches of government;, this too is what one hears from Ron Paul adherents./
Powers that even an Imperial Presidency of today does not hold en toto,but others in state and every apointed department do have with ourside of elected circles influences.
If one wants domestic turmoil from racism,poverty, false patriotism used against people domesticly and a further solidification of Corporatism and police powers, beyond those of today by even just the implementation of existign laws and rules, we now have in place,that is exactly what his Presidency would lead to.
Grand father once told me on one way to judge a mans character: Pay attention to his words when drunk. revealing a confidence, under pressure and especially what he says and does when he is after something he wants very badly; Ron Pauls statement under pressure to get elected have done just that.
John Smith
December 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Yes – Mises was tried at one time as well, by Hoover and Mellon. “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate”. That would be great for ordinary people (remember to abolish the FDIC).
And Great Depressions are real “antiwar” moments.
Street Corner Conservative
December 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I tried to watch Paul’s commercial but the YouTube kept cutting off on me.
That being said, Raimondo doesn’t have a clue. Let me quote him and rebut:
“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?”
Paul isn’t invoking Collective Guilt. All he is saying is that in the Arab-Muslim countries there is sky-high anti-American hatred – thanks, in large part, to our foreign policy (Raimondo of all people should know that). That is not to say every foreign muslim is anti-American – no less a suicide terrorist. It IS to say that if you were to take in a 1,000 immigrants from Japan or a 1,000 from Oman – which set of immigrants would have the higher terrorist sub-set? To ask the question is to answer it.
“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?”
First of all, Paul isn’t for deporting anyone who came here legally via the proper channels – despite the foolishness of our current immigration policy. As far as Paul proposing from here on out a ban on immigrants from Muslim countries, well, in my opinion, It Is About Time. Coming to America is a priviledge not a right.
“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?”
What Paul means is that these are countries that have a significant number of terrorists – not that the people of those countries are terrorists per se. Again, it is our right to decide who comes here – that is our sovereign and moral right. To invade another country, and kill its civilians no less, is legally and morally unjustified. Unfortunately, Raimondo on the Left and neocons/jingoists on the extreme Right (Savage, Coulter, Beck, et al) can’t make that basic commonsense distinction. No wonder why this country is terminally brain dead.
“As Murray Rothbard explained, the anti-interventionist conservatives of the 1950s made the same mistake when they jumped on Joe McCarthy’s bandwagon. 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.”
I have news for Justin: paranoids do have enemies. There are miliions of Islamic terrorists who would like to come here and kill millions of Americans. Now, I agree it is because of our intervention that is the main reason why they would like to do that. Nonetheless, they would still like to do that. That is why we shouldn’t take Muslims into America. Not because most Muslims are terrorists but, rather, most terrorists are Muslims. Now, Raimondo would argue that we should just screen the visa applicants so as to separate the wheat-from-the-chaff. Is he kidding? Our incompetent federal bureaucracy is going to do a CIA background check in a thorough manner on every visa applicant? As Lisa Slyvester of the Lou Dobbs program pointed out:
“the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services… is already overburdened, facing a backlog of cases. There are 4,000 adjudicators who processed seven million applications in fiscal year 2005. ”
I guess we could just have more scrutiny for visa applicants from Muslim countries but that would be “racial profiling” – another bugaboo of Raimondo and his fellow liberals.
Finally, as far as McCarthy and the Cold War was concerned, McCarthy was for getting rid of Soviet infiltration in our own Federal Bureaucracy – particularly the State Department. This was a totally justified an necessary form of Congressional oversight – a point Raimondo himself made in his book Reclaiming the American Right – a book, by the way, forwarded by none other than one of the coldest of the Cold Warriors: Patrick J Buchanan (a ‘northeast Catholic’ – a group Rothbard had, just lets say, a propensity to bash. Talk about stereotyping. Finally, it wasn’t Senator Goldwater or the John Birch Society that got us into Vietnam – it was Kennedy, LBJ, and the rest of their CFR ‘Best & the Brightest’ gang)
“his proposal would penalize large numbers of perfectly innocent people, young people whose only “crime†is to want to come to America….Barring them would be politically foolish, economically counterproductive, and a prelude to much worse.”
First of all, Raimondo puts the interests of foreigners to come here ahead of Americans to be safe. In other words, he doesn’t put America First. Again, there is no way we could screen hundreds of thousands visa applicants. Paul’s proposal IS politically wise because if Middle America’s legitimate concerns about Islamic terrorism aren’t addressed in a legitimate way, then it will be addressed by the jingoistic neocons. The only group that would be hurt economically by his proposal are greedy corporations who want the cheapest labor possible (e.g.: H1-B Visa workers get paid $15,000 less per year). Finally, as far as it being a prelude to much worse, that is a problem with Raimondo and other ideologues: no lines can be drawn, no distinctions can be made.
Finally, In order to win the nomination, or even come close, Paul will need to bring Tancredo’s populist backers into his fold. Instead of shunning them, Paul needs to reach out to them – which is exactly what he is doing (as well as reaching out to religious conservatives).
Libertarians need to reach out to the “Jacksonians”. Otherwise they weill continue to go nowhere.
Chris Golden
Brent
December 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I think, sadly, his campaign is trying to play politics. Clearly Ron Paul is no 30-second sound byte type of guy, but that doesn’t excuse them from rewording the bills he previously passed.
If they were really playing politics, they probably meant “no more” by “no more” per year from the yearly quota. But I don’t even think they were thinking that far, they saw the pretty colors and stamped it with a pre-recorded approval from Paul.
Brent
December 30th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Surely this isn’t a new idea to Congress and this ad is not going to change their mind.
Daniel
December 30th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Justin,
I appreciate your columns and your steadfast resolve. I am also glad to hear that Mr. Paul has not lost your vote over a single-issue disagreement. Litmus test issue arguments have plagued our elections for too long now. As a RP supporter, it is my hope and belief that he will hear the uproar over this ad & listen to his supporters before making the decision to pull it, keep it or clarify it. He gives me the impression that unlike most of the politicians I have observed over my 40+ years, he actually cares about what his constituency thinks. I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now. I have been on board with just about every position of Dr. Paul’s thus far, but I will continue to scrutinize him in the same manner as any other candidate – this election, if allowed to proceed to fruition without any of the recent scandals (Florida, Ohio), is just too key for the future of our country. I look forward to Dr. Paul’s reaction. Now that the caucuses and primaries are upon us, Dr. Paul will have to step up to the plate and prove that he can sustain the momentum he has generated, as well as convince millions of skeptical Americans that his formula to right our country’s path is both correct and practical. I am confident that he can accomplish this, but the rhetoric and accusations will really begin to accelerate now – this election will resemble a Pier 6 brawl before November rolls around..
Brent
December 30th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Probably because it is not listed as a “nation harboring terrorist” under the State Department.
Brent
December 30th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I never understood the word xenophobic.
Brian Otten
December 30th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
One of the best points made on here so far, MetaCynic. Some commenters have excused the language used in the ad in the name of having to play the hard-ball game. Yet, this is a short-term political strategy that could backfire since such an ill-conceived, knee-jerk and xenophobic policy could allow the other Republican candidates to make the isolationist accusations stick.
It’s sloppy campaigning and it could come back to haunt him. This type of hysterical talk is just so against many of the points I’ve seen Dr. Paul make in the debates thus far. His unique appeal has been that he’s not just another one of these political opportunists who will appeal to peoples’ base fears; another one who will just say anything to win. I’m really starting to wonder now.
And another thing – this all just proves Ron Paul’s point about how ineffective and pointless the Department of Homeland Security is if we have no faith in our law-enforcement and border security apparatus and start shreiking, finger-pointing and taking draconian steps of walling ourselves into Fortress America.
peace
December 30th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Like you, Linda, I respect women and their right to privacy when it comes to reproductive freedom.
Jeremy Blosser
December 30th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I just mailed this to Justin and am posting it on ronpaulforums, etc. I hope it helps.
Justin -
You don’t know me from Adam but I am the coordinator of the DFW area Ron Paul meetups. I ran the volunteer ops for the TX straw poll, etc. I’ve got contacts in the immediate Paul family and have been talking to them to get clarification of the “no more visas” line in the new ad, which you and many others objected to.
Fortunately the people I know are at home with Ron this weekend and asked him the question directly. His answer is that his views on immigration HAVE NOT CHANGED and that what he described in all his legislation in the past is still what he wants. We need to limit and review student visas from nations that harbor terrorists, this is part of securing our border.
Obviously the ad went further when it said “no more”, hence the question you raised (I think legitimately). According to Ron and the family, any discrepancy between the his previous position and the ad should be chalked up right now to the nature of a 30 second commercial spot aimed at Iowa voters. I know not everyone will like that answer, and no I don’t know if they’re going to look at changing the ad or not over this, but the point
is: his view is the same as it has been historically, and for more info you can see his previous published works including HR 3217 which he proposed just last summer, which lists its purpose as “To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.” It then goes on to state
that student visas from countries listed and described in the bill need to be REVIEWED and LIMITED.
immigrant
December 30th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
dude i AM a naturalized immigrant ..I will be voting for RON Paul….and the real reason for all the coups and terrorism….its called foreign intervention….read for once!!
immigrant
December 30th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
thanks for clarifying…couldn’t they put limit instead of no…but hey I agree with the guy on other issues so…RON PAUL 2008
Dave
December 30th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
As an economist, I have to say you have no idea what you speak of.
The only thing a gold standard would do is limit the spending power of government, which was the reason for its inclusion into our constitution. You are aware our constitution dictates that gold and silver are to be the only currency and that it has never been amended otherwise, right? The laws we have now which established a fiat currency are actually unconstitutional.
Your justification for continuing the war in Iraq is rather amusing. It amounts to “well, we’ve always done it, so why not keep it up?”
In case you havn’t noticed, the USA is dead broke, busted, which means “we ain’t got no more money.” Our national debt, trade and budget deficits all add up to financial collapse.
If we don’t elect a president and congress which will take drastic steps to get us back in the black, your great great grandchildren will have to learn how to speak Mandarin so they can deal with their new government.
I see none of the other candidates making proposals to reduce our debt. NONE! They all want to spend more! The income tax will not support some of the crazy schemes coming out of their mouths, and guess what? We’re fast approaching the time when other countries will refuse to lend us more money.
George
December 30th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I don’t see anything wrong with that advertisement other than the “terrorist nations” bit. Unfortunately it is our nation’s foreign policy that is waging the terror. 1 million dead in Iraq, 3 to 4 million displaced from their homes. All this for something they had nothing to do with in the first place? I don’t think this advertisement will hurt though. We do have a problems with illegal immigration. I don’t understand why that is considered racists with some people. My parents did it legally! I think it is just a little unfair for someone to get rewarded for breaking the law.
G2D2
December 30th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Enough of immigration already, both legal and illegal. We already have too many people in this country and we are not obligated to take in immigrants if we don’t want to. This ad is great and will appeal to the Buchananites and other paleoconservatives who are Ron Paul’s base of support. Way to go!
Richard
December 30th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I agree, Justin. That last part sounds uncharacteristically draconian of Dr. Paul, and needs to be changed or removed from the Ad. Historically, Dr. Paul advocated careful review of student visas from Saudi Arabia, and other countries that sponsor terrorism, as a means of securing the border. But careful review should be standard practice for all student visas granted, regardless of national origin! Put those NSA data mining algorithms to good use for a change ;-) Dr. Paul would be well served to revisit his policy.
peace
December 30th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Whites Americans are not superior to non-white Americans.
peace
December 30th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I second your God Bless.
peace
December 30th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Exactly like you said, Linda, and almost all are during the first three months.
Mark Stromberg
December 30th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
The ads point is the way student visas are currently issued, we should not allow them from terrorist nations. And Murray’s Mid-West housewives agree with me and Ron on this. That does not mean that a more thoroughly vetted visa can’t be offered to students from Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. But we can’t forget that this ad is targeted at Iowa. In his ads Ron has 30 seconds to make his case against a GOP opposition that (other than Thompson) are very weak and vulnerable on the immigration issue. I would remind you that about 80% of the US population agrees with Ron on the issue as stated in the ad.
That being said, I’ll continue to support Antiwar.com and if I become a delegate to Minneapolis I’ll buy the first round of drinks.
peace
December 30th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
This wikipedia recitation should be required reading for all historians and politicians, among others.
bob
December 30th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
You are wrong on 2 counts.
The Ayn Rand Objectivists have been taken over by Zionists recently although I’m sure although she was Jewish Ayn Rand never would have stood for that. If you don’t believe me check it out on the web.
Second, Ron Paul is for a weak and constitutional central government, so we would have to rely on Governors to mow down those people. Ron Paul won’t do it.
Ken
December 30th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
i quite agree, unfortunately.
Also, unfortunately, absent a better alternative, in the form of someone who will commit to overturing the IRS and the Fed, I am unlikely to vote for anyone else.
Kucinich. But I only hope against hope that he will be an option provided to me/us.
I feel there are these terribly negative things about paul that go unsaid. And the msm, which could eliminate him entirely, chooses not to, while complaining if at all deigning to speak his name.
he is anti abortion, which I can respect as a doctor’s opinion in favor of life. He is also against the death penalty. But how does he square this intrusion into women’s lives with his removing government from our lives.
Paul talks a good game on some points, and important ones at that, but he is woefully lacking in humanity.
Like the man he is most comparable to, buchanan, he has plenty of blame for the gay community when it comes to aids. that surprises me about a doctor who values life and all.
He is, in the end, a politician who must be elected or denied on specific issues. He is slick and self-assured. And a bit whiny. If he were passionate an thoroughly consistent in a more humanistic approach, then his whining would appear as soft-spoken passion.
I expect it’s a bit more of the defensive, and it will only get worse.
I ask again, why is he permitted to continue?
Jim Capo
December 30th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Yes! If you are from a country of concern your Visa should be looked at with even greater scrutiny — just as happens in any competent background check.
If Ron Paul really feels this strongly about the issue, he would be far better off retracting this absurd call for a total BAN and replace it for a call that students from certain countries be required to submit to some kind of secure tracking program.
Calling for students from certain countries to accept being tethered while in the US would have been better than this call for a total ban on entry.
As the good doctor likes to remind us, this is still America. An individual should not be punished based on the accident of where they were born.
John Smith
December 30th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
How is Ron Paul going to pay for his promises to the paleocons? Ending immigration and trade agreements will be very expensive, both directly and indirectly. And how are the states going to pay for the huge new responsibilities once Federal functions are shut down?
And btw, why would we want to return to the original Constitution? Do we want to end direct election of Senators? Do we want to limit suffrage to white Men once again? Are some people 3/5 of others?
Gearges Fair
December 30th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
You forgot the CIA
John Lowell
December 30th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
One observation: Yours is the pseudo-analysis and jargon of a squalid, little hater, chief, just chock-full of all the catch words and prejudice typical of a small mind. Go find a rock and crawl under it.
Justin Sobodash
December 30th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
I completely agree with this post and I would take it a step further: this ad is making me seriously reconsider my support for Ron Paul. I have given him money. I switched my registration from Libertarian to Republican so I could vote for him in the primary. I have posted numerous blogs on myspace and convinced more than a few people to vote for him and take the same measures I have taken.
But I started to have misgivings about Paul’s odd blend of libertarianism and socially conservative nationalism. I don’t understand his hostility toward immigrants – the rant should be against the welfare state and ALL those who are parasites in it – not just immigrants. And it’s just not true that immigrants are here to get free government benefits. They mostly come to work their asses off, from everything I’ve seen here in immigrant-rich Los Angeles.
I don’t think American exceptionalism is reconcilable with the idea that rights are inherent and owned by each individual. That is a universal idea, not an American one. Paul makes goods points about the practical means of spreading support for individual rights (through persuasion rather than force). But perhaps he just doesn’t really believe in individual rights for each person.
Paul’s rights based approach seems to be warped by a belief that some individual human rights – straight, Christian, male, American citizens – are more equal than others. Aside from the immigration issue, his fundraising letters from previous campaigns belie a paranoid Christian nationalist worldview where the largest religious group in this country is somehow persecuted because they don’t get to impose their veiws on everyone else. And recently he’s postured like he’s a live and let live guy on gay issues (probably because he knows he has a lot of gay supporters this time around) but he introduced a bill to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide matters of sexual privacy. He thinks evolution is “just a theory.” Eesh, really doctor?
I’m getting a little tired of Paul’s “live and let live” and “us versus them” doublespeak. Which is it?
Maybe it would be best of the LP put forth their own candidate and doesn’t try to get Paul to run as their candidate again.
dodsworth
December 30th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Justin S:
If you have a better candidate, please tell me where I can sign up. Let me amend that: please suggest a candidate who is even half as good as Ron Paul. The truth is that Paul is light years ahead of all the rest. I disagree with him on immigration but, as a pro-choicer, his position of leaving abortion up to the states seems reasonable. Now….if you want to adopt the anarchist non-voting position, I can respect that. If you are hoping for a better candidate to come along who will get over 1 percent of the vote, you will have a long wait and the LP isn’t going to do squat.
Nicole Hansen
December 30th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Good points Brad. As someone you spent 11 years in grad school at one of those elite universities with lots of foreign students, I think they do nothing but waste Federal and other grant money. So many professors and departments in the university are more interested in raising money to pay grad students to do work in order to attract them to justify their own existence than they are in actually producing results from what they do. Ron Paul is astute too about the Federal loans and how their easy availability has allowed universities to raise tuition to ridiculous levels.
lizard
December 30th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Cuba is a terrorist nation? Give me an example.
Nicole Hansen
December 30th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/washington/13students.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin
The Egyptian government itself considered these students to have brought shame upon their country. They were expelled from their university when they went back home. It’s amazing that a country like Egypt itself does not support this kind of behavior but some Americans seem to think it is acceptable.
lizard
December 30th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
strictly speaking RP is not suggesting kicking anyone out but rather not letting in any more STUDENTS from a nation designated as terrorist. I agree that the label “terorist nation” is non-sensical and shows that RP is either not that bright or not that honest. However, if you do believe in terrorist nations it makes sense to keep out their students.
VIJAY KRISHNAN
December 30th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
This ad is in bad taste and also displays bad grammar.I find it hard to believe that Ron Paul “personally approved it”. There has to be a clarification from the campaign about it. This is the first mistake in a virtually flawless campaign so far. I hope it is also the last. A lot of broad-minded as well as fair-minded people will be offended. One can’t go on about “talking to the enemy” and then denying them student visas .Students are in their formative years and it is then that hearts and minds can be transformed.Of course, basic precautions have to be taken, i.e., denying visas to persons having terrorist connections. Ron Paul’s campaign seems to be conflating the terrorism issue with the immigration issue. Krishnan.
Michael Collins
December 30th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Correct me if I am wrong but didn’t Dr. Paul, shortly after the 9/11 attack, propose a bill that would enact a moratorium on student visas from the countries from which those terrorists came? I could be wrong on this but I have a vague recollection that this is true.
Further discussion of this issue on the antiwar.com site seems irrelavant to its purpose. I guess I never knew that this site had a dog in the immigration controversy and I’m no new recruit to antiwar.com having donated and read here since the Kosovo fiasco.
How come there has been all the effort to have a united front with extreme leftists but no tolerance for the paleocons who agree with the antiwar proposition but hold a slighty different view on the national question?
Ron Paul Revolutionary Guard
December 30th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Ron Paul is right, no Amnesty ever for illegals. They can get into the back of the line. No welfare benefits, free medical care, and birthright citizenship for children of illegals. The cost the economy more than they provide and I am tired of subsidizing my rich liberal democrat neighbors gardening and rich republican neighbors house cleaning by paying for these people’s cheap labor. If we need people from outside the country, pay them a living wage with benefits and make the people who use their serivices pay for it, not me who doesn’t use them. Why should we educate people from countries that want engineers that can later build nuclear weapons and other WMD’s??? Think about it.
lizard
December 30th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
as an M.D. I agree Stephen. Cuba produces a huge surplus of M.D.s which they barter for oil with Venezuela. They pay their M.D.s 20 dollars a month. In Canada M.D.s make a lot less than in the U.S because of a government monopoly on health insurance but the remuneration is still supported by limitation of access to medical school. In Quebec there is a shortage of M.D.s , for example, at least in part because the government reduced the number of student positions.
Howie
December 30th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Can you refer me to the term “illegal” alien in the Immigration and Nationality Act? Sounds like you are “spinning” the law.
free ks
December 30th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Mr R –
“We’re” not talking at all. Ron Paul Revolution is doing the talking and making history. You (and Me)are just taking notes.
Fight fire with fire my man.
viva Thomas Jefferson.
Howie
December 30th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Hatred and intolerance toward people you stigmatize as “illegal” who come from a predominantly different race/culture from the one you are so dearly trying to protect is to me a form of racism not too well disguised. This whole ad is disgusting.
imp
December 30th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
“Rarely has a more ignorant proposal been advanced”
The Iraq War, for starters. And about a million decisions that have come out of the Bush-Cheney Hegemony, for example.
I thought antiwar.com was about war, not student visas. If you’re branching out, maybe do something about the drug war against pseudophedrine, and the trade war about restrictions on Prius imports. Those have infinitely more impact on my life than this policy.
Adam
December 30th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Unfortunately, there are such things as “TERRORIST” nations:
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm
Randohr
December 30th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
This is my favorite add to date. I will donate even more of my hard earned cash to his campaign. End the welfare state, make the invasion of the United States illegal, what a concept. Obey the laws already on the books. This is such a no-brainer! I have yet to hear any other “policy” from any other candidate that even comes close to something that might actually get to the root of the invasion issue. This ad states what his proposed policy changes have been since day-one, why do so many of his supposed supporters write of their surprise? Hmmmmmmm…trolls?
The smear game is stepping up a notch, this is the part I truly love.
Democrats for Ron Paul 2008
ssaf
December 30th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
haha- this is like the first fight in a relationship. Don’t let it break us apart – at least it might pull some meatheads into the fold!
Paleoconservative in Ohio
December 30th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Justin,
About 1/2 of the AMERICAN computer programmers I know are now unemployed because they’ve been replaced by cheap imports from India who are working for about 1/2 what my friends were.
When it comes to immigration, you guys at Antiwar.com are in lockstep with the neocons and support the third world invasion of the West.
STOP THE INVASION!
Joe
December 30th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I like the ad. I don’t see what is so suprising about it. The content is almost verbatim from the border security section of the issues page of his campaign website, and he is a member of Tancredo’s immigration reform caucus in Congress. It is one of the main reasons I have been campaigning for him (though not the only one.) We should deport those on student visas from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates,Egypt, and Lebanon – and no, we shouldn’t stop there.
tim
December 30th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
One wonders if Iran wanted to stop potential CIA agents from coming into their country on “student visas” if Justin would be so hot under the collar.
J707
December 30th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
“I don’t understand his hostility toward immigrants – the rant should be against the welfare state and ALL those who are parasites in it – not just immigrants. And it’s just not true that immigrants are here to get free government benefits. They mostly come to work their asses off, from everything I’ve seen here in immigrant-rich Los Angeles.”
- Like most who take the liberal position on this issue, you are completely misrepresenting the ENTIRE DEBATE.
Say it with me folks:
The…issue…here…is…ILLEGAL (as in, not legal)…IMMIGRATION. One more time; no one is talking about LEGAL immigrants, we’re talking about the ILLEGAL immigrants.
And you are grossly misrepresenting Paul’s attitude towards illegal immigrants to boot- he has shown by far the LEAST hostility towards the ILLEGAL immigrants themselves of any Rep. candidate. He regularly says that they are being scapegoated in this issue as the source of all evil when it is our broken and corrupt economy and corporate environment that actively encourage these people to sneak into the country.
I cant believe how many people out there just DONT GET IT. You seem to completely buy the premise that this is some sort of race or xenophobia issue…well, time to wake up because ITS NOT.
Its a clear-cut case of illegal activity on a mass scale where the government and big-business are in cahoots, reaping any “reward” (in the form of CHEAP, ILLEGAL, and therefore EXPLOITABLE labor with no payroll/workers comp./etc normal workers rights) and WE THE PEOPLE/CITIZENS are being forced to pay the bill (healthcare, education, housing, etc.)
Get off this “why is he so anti-immigrant” nonsense; the issue here is not with the people seeking a better way of life, standing in line, going through mountains of paperwork and certifications, and waiting YEARS for their entire families to be brought in legally along with them so they can THEN work backbreaking hours to provide. The ISSUE is with those who hopped the fence in front of them, are being exploited by big business here for illegally cheap labor, and whose essentials of living are being put on YOUR tab.
If people like you were indeed as sympathetic to the cause of IMMIGRANTS (LEGAL ones) as you claim, you’d not only oppose runaway illegal immigration as it is now…you’d know that most LEGAL IMMIGRANTS DO TOO. I know 3 families (vietnamese, indian, and mexican) who had to wait YEARS and jump through every bureaucratic hoop thrown in front of them to get themselves and their families here, and they are ALL extremely opposed to illegal immigration. Not surprising, since illegal-immigration apologists and outright proponents are simply in effect telling all legal immigrants: “you sure wasted YOUR time obeying our laws, sucker.”
“I don’t think American exceptionalism is reconcilable with the idea that rights are inherent and owned by each individual. That is a universal idea, not an American one. Paul makes goods points about the practical means of spreading support for individual rights (through persuasion rather than force). But perhaps he just doesn’t really believe in individual rights for each person.”
- Yes, but Paul is running for President of the United States, not “leader of the free world” as the others are. I have never seen anything from him to indicate that he believes all Americans shouldnt be guaranteed the same equal rights.
“Paul’s rights based approach seems to be warped by a belief that some individual human rights – straight, Christian, male, American citizens – are more equal than others.”
- Those arent “rights” those are descriptors. And I dont know where you got the impression that Paul thinks only white christian males should have anything over anyone else. As a black american I havent seen ONE bit of evidence to that assertion, but I do know that ending the drug war as Paul proposes would alleviate a network of socioeconomic problems facing all Americans, but ESPECIALLY non-whites among the middle and lower classes.
“Aside from the immigration issue, his fundraising letters from previous campaigns belie a paranoid Christian nationalist worldview where the largest religious group in this country is somehow persecuted because they don’t get to impose their veiws on everyone else.”
- Forgive my skepticism but Im starting to believe very strongly that you never supported Paul at all. The above claim is not only untrue and deliberately vague, but if you knew and believed it, why would you have supported him to begin with?
“And recently he’s postured like he’s a live and let live guy on gay issues (probably because he knows he has a lot of gay supporters this time around) but he introduced a bill to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide matters of sexual privacy.”
- The supreme court shouldnt decide those matters; because they are EXPLICITLY GUARANTEED in the 4th AMENDMENT. And his position of not caring whether gay people marry (or whether a prostitute accepts money in exchange for sex) is over 20 years old. Look up his 1988 interviews on youtube if you dont believe me.
“He thinks evolution is “just a theory.†Eesh, really doctor?”
- He’s a CHRISTIAN. As in, a RELIGIOUS PERSON who believes in CREATIONISM and a DIVINE JESUS “CHRIST.” You really think someone with an M.D. from Duke University hasnt assessed all the evidence against creationism? Of course he has- and he probably knows deep down how untrue it makes biblical stories look. But its HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Religious people, by definition, reject evidence counter to their beliefs as a matter of “faith.” I am an agnostic-leaning-atheist and this doesnt bother me at all, sounds typical of what a religious person would say.
Barry Freed
December 30th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Maybe he means Israel.
Francois
December 30th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Justin is off liberal land. Ron Paul hits the nail on the head with this television ad. I now like him even more than I did before.
isaac
December 30th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
i have donated to rp twice and i am a bit ashamed of this ad. terrorist nations? that sounds like newspeak from the likes of fox news. does that mean no visas for students from the uk? there were terrorists from there. what about spain? what about israel. i happen to know a guy here on a student visa from iran, which he escaped to come here. he’s a really smart, educated guy that loves american values. the last thing we need is to fear mongering, that’s not what this campaign is about.
Ad Watcher
December 30th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Justin – I wanted to weigh in with agreement to your comments. Although I’m sure we’ll both get static for saying so, there comes a point for the libertarians under Ron Paul’s banner have to say that there are too many differences between Paul and the Libertarian Party platform for the LP to not run a candidate. I’ve voted Libertarian for twenty years, including for Paul in 1988. The priorities within his message have changed since that time.
My points of disagreement now include long-term immigration policy, abortion rights, the maintenance duration of some social programs (like social security), gay marriage, and the role of religious “ethics” in government. While I would agree with those here that say there is no better candidate now running, I will not be adding to my four figure YTD contribution for Paul until I see how things go in the next few weeks. This ad, combined with numerous missteps by the national campaign staff in other ads, have led me to reconsider the strength of my support. At a broader level, I see a risk that Paul’s message is interpreted by the public to be the definition of a libertarian message for decades to come, although it certainly isn’t one.
Michael Collins
December 30th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
This is the position of Ron Paul on “student visas to terrorist nations” as defined in the bill he submitted shortly after 9/11. Makes good sense to me. You can’t expect a 30 second ad to fully explain a political issue and I see nothing in the Bill he submitted as drastic as you surmise in your post. (Hat tip to Brad Smith who posted this on the other “student visa” thread.)
HR 488 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 488
To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 29, 2003
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Mr. DUNCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
——————————————————————————–
A BILL
To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003′.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF STUDENT AND DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISAS TO ALIENS WHO ARE NATIONALS OF SAUDI ARABIA OR COUNTRIES THAT SUPPORT TERRORISM OR ARE NOT COOPERATING FULLY WITH UNITED STATES ANTITERRORISM EFFORTS.
(a) LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF STUDENT VISAS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien may not be granted a visa for study in the United States under subparagraphs (F), (J), or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act without review by the President if the alien is a national of Saudi Arabia, a country designated under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a country that supports acts of international terrorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.
(d) LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISAS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien may not be granted an immigrant visa under section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)) relating to diversity immigrants without review by the President if the alien is a national of Saudi Arabia, a country designated under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a country that supports acts of international terrorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not fully cooperating with United States antiterrorism efforts.
END
Cherusci
December 30th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Comment to Justin S.: I don’t think Dr. Paul ever claimed to be a pure libertarian. By that I mean – not favoring any “socially conservative” nationalistic concepts. Who are you going to vote for if not Ron Paul? As for your comments about immigrants – many, if not most being illegal aliens – in Los Angeles who “mostly come to work their asses off” others commenting on this site obviously have first hand evidence on which to disagree with your views. It’s been shown that illegal immigrants as a whole take more out of the economy than they contribute. Many if not most don’t pay taxes so this taking is in the form of medical care from hospitals (laws mandate these services), education in our public schools, police and fire protection, in-state tuition, to name some of the larger takings. Some of the posts on this site expose die-hard leftists who lack the intelligence or courage to get beyond their mushy, emotional ideology to see the wisdom of not allowing large numbers of people from all over the globe into this country. The US is fast becoming a the world’s boarding house of squabling nationalities that Teddy Roosevelt warned us about. Countries in this predicament don’t long survive. But that may be what the multiculturist, politically-correct lefties want anyway.
Jimmy Case
December 30th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Nothing racist about demanding border security, and seems to me like a threat to curb student visas from unnamed foreign nations would provide incentive from the bottom up in said unnamed nations to forget about following the troops back home when they pack up and leave.
Ron Paul is a very thoughtful man.
GM
December 30th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I have to agree with Justin’s comments. The ad panders to anti-immigrant and anti-foreigner prejudices, and I am really saddened as someone who admires Dr. Paul that he would associate his campaign with an ad like this. Libertarians like Dr. Paul should be a voice of reason and morality, countering the current wave of immigrant bashing and anti-foreigner hysteria, not fueling the flames. Doesn’t Dr. Paul see the bitter irony of his own ad which begins with the inspiring images of the Statute of Liberty and Ellis Island and which ends with Border Patrol agents frisking and handcuffing illegal aliens?
Ron Paul Revolutionary Guard
December 30th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Maybe if we did that 20+ years ago and banned Pakistani students from all science degrees, the Pakistani’s wouldn’t have nuclear weapons and missles today. Why do we in the west continue to train student from countries that hate us in any engineering, biological, or chemical school??? That said it is a minor issue compared to the economy and the Iraq war. think about it!
BeenThere
December 30th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
HOORAY FOR JUSTIN RAIMONDO ! ! ! Thank you. Voice of reason.
JJ
December 30th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Justin,
There’s more to this than meets the eye.
If Ron Paul declares Israel a terrorist state, it would automatically ban those 911 Israeli “art students” that you’ve been so concerned about.
bob
December 30th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Conceding that the tone of that recording was unseamly and crude and should be pulled, I think it does make some good points.
My state is poor and has limited college opportunity, Why do illegal alien’s kids get subsidized to neighboring state colleges and my kids have to pay 3 times the tuition? I just want equality. And have you been to the graduate schools of our universities lately? especially in science & engineering. Americans are a minority and a small minority at that. Of the 60 graduate students at LSU in electrical engineering 3 are american!!!!! We subsidize their education and send them back to China and India to compete with us.
johnsturgeon
December 30th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Why the fuss?
I’ll happily promote Ron Paul–as a staunch Dem–despite this ad exploiting anti-immigration sentiment.
Ending the war and reining in the CIA is easily worth the price.
Further, a strong Ron Paul showing can split the neocon–vs.–hard-right fundamentalist wings of the Republican Party.
Best thing any Democrat could to is ensure a Ron Paul nomination.
khaleel
December 30th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
I am a huge Ron Paul supporter, but I dislike this ad. It gives the appearance of pandering for votes. It gives a horrible feeling inside.
The word terrorist seems to be synonymous in the modern world with Muslim. The media is constantly using the term Islamic terror. Dr. Paul himself said after his Dearborn, Michigan, debate that this was used by warmongers to justify endless war. I sure hope Dr. Paul removes this ad. It doesn’t serve him.
Regarding 9-11, everyone needs to gain more information. There is such a way in this country of innocent until proven guilty. Is there any actual proof regarding who destroyed the World Trade Center? Are people aware of the admission of the FBI that the list of 19 accused is incorrect, that up to 9 of these men have nothing to do with this crime and that they were not even in this country (see Whatreallyhappened.com)? What of the Israeli spies, who were caught attempting to cause murder and mayhem, in a “van packed with explosives” on the George Washington Bridge, September 12, 2:30 am? What of the “Dancing Israelis” caught celebrating the attacks, laughing and jerring, held in solitary confinement only to be later secretly deported? Explosives residues were found in their vans. What of the fact that of all people only the Israelis were given advance knowledge through the Israel-based ODIGO INSTANT MESSENGING SERVICE to leave the building on September 11?
No such people, proven to be involved in this crime, are called Jewish terrorists. So, who defines the terrorists, a president, just by his own views? This is no different than the current administration, if this is the real intention of Dr. Paul. The campaign has some explaining to do, that is if this is really their video.
We have been supporting you in every way we possibly can. I don’t want my money spent for such a horrible demonstration of racism and vote pandering. Who is this campaign trying to please? Unless this is changed immediately I quit.
khaleel
December 30th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
UPDATE: Again, is this ad credible? It is so poorly done. It does not match the caliber of Dr. Paul’s other ads. It would appear to be a fake. Where is the proof that it is really from his campaign? Regardless, if this really is a campaign ad, how can anyone support such vague language as “terrorist nations?” I agree with the wise poster that no nation of people is ‘terrorist.’ Something is wrong here. Review Dr. Paul’s other ads, which are professional and clear. Would someone give proof of the source of this ad.
robbie
December 30th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
cry baby,go sulk in the corner.
Angela Canny
December 30th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Ithink is what bothers me! You’ve nailed it for me, as usual, with that statement. “It’s just plain mean.”
jon_prez
December 30th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I too, am incredulous that this ad could have been “approved by Ron Paul”.
pappy
December 31st, 2007 at 12:03 am
Most of this is a distraction from the main issue Ron Paul stated that he wants to stop terrorist acts, and one of the ways to stop this is “No visas for students from ‘terrorist nations’â€. How many of the 9/11 terrorists were in the U.S. using a student visa? How many of those students actually took classis at U.S. Universities? How many of those so called students were from Saudi Arabia? Those are the issues, not that Ron Paul
So if this means that no visas for students from ‘terrorist nations’ then so be yet, the burden of proof falls on the students, the students need to prove that they are here to study and are not associated with any terrorist groups, and are not going to commit terrorist acts, I don’t think this is a racist policy, that is a protectionist policy. Saudi Arabian students should be at the top of this list.
MMir
December 31st, 2007 at 12:06 am
Look all you “libertarians” who think open borders are so f’ing great. From someone who lives in Houston, TX and gets to see the results, it ain’t so great and actually INCREASES government.
R. Paul is on the money here.
Illegals DRIVE UP TAXES. They come across and get born in the US baby citizens and then soak up billions of dollars of medical and educational services.
Our property taxes are going through the f’ing roof because of school funding issues mainly to support constantly increasing demands of educating EVERYONE. So the productive taxpayer gets to foot the bill for his own kids and 10+ illegal kids in the public schools.
Then there’s medical insurance. This hits all you northern wankers too. A huge part of the cost of medical insurance is to subsidize the hospitals that keep giving care to millions of illegals who have no medical insurance and use ER’s like a neighborhood clinic. So stuff that in your sock the next time you complain about latest rate hike and your new $2500 deductible.
Now I luv cheap Mexican labor. Our houses are cheaper and bigger and we get our huge f’ing lawns mowed and edged for $30. But we get to pay for it from the gov mugging us to provide them an education and flu shots.
There’s 2 solutions. Either stop the border dead cold with a wall and the US Army.
Or get gov out of the social welfare business. Then we can exploit the Mexican laborers without providing any social services. I prefer this method.
R. Paul wants to end the nanny state that mugs each of us for %30-%50 of our annual income. And he will end our involvement in the M.E. so there won’t be any angry Saudis, Iraqis, Iranians, or Lebanese trying to come across the border to knock another set of buildings down or blow up a mall.
So when that happens we can take the wall down and have happy cheap labor come across the border again.
John
December 30th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
It's says border security; and what's wwrong with border security? I guess you are now like the paronoid Zionists who see subliminal messages and code words in everything; especially, statements that do not agree with them.
The United States is a real nation with definite borders, a definite culture, and a defined geography; it is not a concept nation, whatever that is. And as a nation the United States has not only a right, but an obligation to its citizens to protect its borders, and define just who may enter.
Illegal immigration is just that: illegal. We are a welcoming nation and always have been. All most people want is for those seeking citzenship here to get in line and use the legal mechanism.
BeenThere
December 31st, 2007 at 1:09 am
Re: Comment by MMir on 2007-12-31 00:06:05
Your state would be broke without the illegal immigrants. Read what your state comptroller had to say after conducting the ONLY study in the Union to make that financial determination: Texas state comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn’s 2006 report, “Undocumented Immigrants in Texas: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy.†Strayhorn found that aliens in Texas paid about $2 billion in taxes and fees while using $1.16 billion in government resources.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/61207undocumented.html
Sam
December 31st, 2007 at 2:20 am
Justin,
Thank You.
As a Ron Paul supporter I am VERY disappointed in this AD. I agree with his stance on illegal immigration BUT.. we should not COLLECTIVELY brand all people as potential terrorists based on their country (and what about Israel??)
A Student Visa requires the student to give proof of sufficient funds for his or her education. Also these are student that are entering the USA as LEGAL immigrants so not sure why the Paul AD choose to emphasis this in an AD primarily aimed at ILLEGAL immigrants.
I hope Paul can explain this and backs off from the rhetoric against the legal immigrants. I am still a supporter but I feel as if some some cold water has been dumped on my head and no longer as enthusiastic as I was about RP.. very disappointed really
R. Nelson
December 31st, 2007 at 2:59 am
And we shouldn’t collectively brand all young men as criminals. But if you wanted to slash crime rates or pursue the likeliest suspects in a mugging, you will (if you have any sense) bring the scrutiny of the law more against young men in general than any other group.
Of course such an approach is unfair. It’s also the only practical course, unless like the TSA you think little old ladies should be patted down as well as hirsute young men from the Mideast.
Being libertarian doesn’t have to mean living in la-la land.
Midian
December 31st, 2007 at 2:34 am
Anti war? or Anti-common sense?
If our government is going to go as far as to declare a country a Terrorist nation… No Student Visas to them, is a great idea. Maybe that would encourage these countries to civilize themselves a bit so they can take advantage of resources in countries other than their own. Compound the fact that so many of the illegal immigrants in this country, from everywhere BUT Mexico, are here because they got here on a student visa, went to school for a few days & vanished…
I'm the biggest anti-war proponent out there, but turning a blind eye to common sense and the facts is Not the way to stay out of war.
Mark
December 31st, 2007 at 3:42 am
“If you want to go for a Republican..”
Oh yeah, the Republican & democrat parties have done such a great job of turning this once great nation into a cesspool of vomit, massacre and despotism..lets “go for” another one!! because the last one was such a great hit.
Fantastic idea, “go for” it dude!, be a a good sheep and fall in line with the same stale failed policies of the establishment DC crime families, both promise everything and deliver nothing.
Seeing RP give credibility to the so called “war on terror”, as if it were real… is sad, but he’s still a better option than floating yet another lump of rep / dep fecal matter into the desperate to be flushed toilet bowl that has become of the fed .gov.
Scott Frost
December 31st, 2007 at 3:50 am
As I said earlier, I think Justin is quite correct. However, I also think that we must keep some perspective here. Ron Paul is still the only serious anti-war candidate. He is the only noninterventionist. That alone would outweigh quite a lot of these little disagreements, if there were a lot of them. (And, for me, thankfully, there are not.)
We have two choices, the way I see it: Ron Paul or more of the same crap. If you want more of the same, pick any of the other candidates. It really doesn’t matter very much which one you choose. If you want peace and fiscal sanity, vote for Ron Paul.
Not voting for Ron Paul over this one issue would be like Jerry on “Seinfled” rejecting an otherwise terrific woman because he doesn’t like the way that she eats peas.
Dennis Jernberg
December 31st, 2007 at 3:59 am
Actually, the Ayn Rand Institute officially believes in collective guilt, especially that of Muslims. This is a position Rand herself strenuously rejected, above all in her essay “Racism” in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness”. The ARI actually calls for the total extermination, nuclear if possible, of all Muslims. I say that is un-Objectivist. It is certainly un-Randian. And those ARI clowns call themselves the protectors of their philosophy? Give me a break…
Dr. Paul may not be an Objectivist himself — he is a devout Baptist, after all — but he is certainly pro-capitalist. The problem with the American economy is that it is *state* capitalist: it is far too dependent on the government. Remember that he wants to abolish the Department of Commerce.
Jerome Beers
December 31st, 2007 at 4:18 am
Earlier this year I donated $100 each to both the Gravel and the Paul campaigns. I was literally planning to go to the Paul site immediately after looking at antiwar.com right now to donate $100 more to Paul. Now I won’t. I instead will donate to antiwar.com, and perhaps some to counterpunch.com. I had previously intended to vote in a Republican primary for the 1st time in my life, for Paul. Now I am having second thoughts.
Another comment: I disagree Justin Raimondo over various things, but his comments on this matter seem carefully and reasonably worded, and completely realistic. I find it remarkable that many people who have responded as if they had not read J.R.’s piece. They have instead written as if reacting to a piece of their own fantasies, some sort of shadow bogey-man provoked to arise from their imaginations by J.R.’s essay. Among other things, The topic of this proposed policy is only somewhat distantly related the topics of illegal immigration, and prevention of entry of terrorists.
Another comment: A key point is the basic unfairness, and intellectual sloppiness, of the concept of targeting students (with the clear implication of ‘all students’) from ‘terrorist nations’. Terrorists need not come from ‘terrorist nations’; conversely, wonderful non-terrorists may come from ‘terrorist nations’. Also, the ********s in congress and the executive branch are grotesquely unreliable in any number of things, and cannot be trusted not to apply the term ‘terrorist’ to relatively benign governments. Even more to the point, they have demonstrated their incompetence and viciousness in not having labelled as ‘terrorist’ in a consistent and logical fashion all particularly atrocious governments.
Mik
December 31st, 2007 at 4:23 am
Interesting fact… 2 of the presidents assasinated in america were assisinated within 2 weeks of making a push to the gold standard….
Problems I guess is that there likely isnt enough gold in existance to back up all the money the US uses/ claims. We could literally wake up tomorrow and have our US dollars equal nothing, with nothing to back it up Its already headed that way. In alaska where I live, it is much closer and conveniant to drive to Canada to shop, but the dollar has gone down so much that the cost of living here has gone through the roof. The people that run the nation and the people of this nation seem to be a reflection of eachother. We are a nation of rampant obesity, disease, disorders, syndromes and ignorance. And it seems that we just keep making support groups to justify whatever our issues are.. rather than tackling the source of the problems.
Dennis Jernberg
December 31st, 2007 at 4:25 am
“No student visas from terrorist nations” — Is this Ron Paul’s Sister Souljah moment? I fear the MSM are about to run away with this, since it “proves” their allegation that he’s a “racist”. Or, even worse, they’ll praise him for “seeing the light” and coming to the “right” (New Right, i.e. neocon) position at last. I hope he reconsiders. It makes him look like Barry Goldwater wanting to “bomb Vietnam back into the Stone Age”. That phrase got Lyndon Johnson elected in 1964, remember.
Scott Frost
December 31st, 2007 at 4:35 am
Please see my comment just two comments above yours. (The one where “Seinfeld” is misspelled.)
I think not supporting Ron Paul is a big mistake. Who is better? Nobody.
Are you going to simply not vote and let everyone else impose one of the interventionist, pro-coercion candidates on you (and the rest of us) without a fight? I strongly urge you to reconsider. (Although, a donation to antiwar.com is never a bad thing.) :D
Immigrant
December 31st, 2007 at 6:00 am
Great ad! Ron Paul has hit the nail on the head as usual. I am a black immigrant that will be voting for Ron Paul by the way.
paulite
December 31st, 2007 at 6:40 am
Justin Huckabee. With friends like Justin, who needs enemies?
John Lowell
December 31st, 2007 at 7:06 am
That’s thoughtful. I’ll bet that if this were 1939 and you were then a communist you would have gone along dutifully with Stalin’s line after his having signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Michael Birbeck
December 31st, 2007 at 7:16 am
(Logical proposition)
I am a British citizen who thinks that the United States still belongs to Britain and would seize all US territory as a matter of principle, if only to educate her citizens in the art of logical debate and to remind them of the abiding majesty of the American constitution (that protects freedom of speech and the rights of the individual).
On the basis of my subversive (if somewhat tongue in cheek) opinion do you believe that all UK citizens who want to travel to, work in or study in the USA should be barred lest they too are somewhow tainted with this terrible canker?
Ron Paul’s position appears to be just what it is, religiously and potentially racially motivated. Shame on his campaign for befouling the message from Paul who is normally the most logical and patriotic (in the best sense) of all the candidates.
What next for the USA, thought crimes (you have your Gulags already).
G2D2
December 31st, 2007 at 7:19 am
“The ad panders to anti-immigrant and anti-foreigner prejudices, and I am really saddened as someone who admires Dr. Paul that he would associate his campaign with an ad like this. Libertarians like Dr. Paul should be a voice of reason and morality, countering the current wave of immigrant bashing and anti-foreigner hysteria”.
Jesse Jackson, is that you? Please go take your wishy-washy liberal whining to a Hillary Clinton forum.
I’ll say it again – the Buchanan supporters and other paleoconservatives are Ron Paul’s base, and the “no borders” Cato-esque libertarians (who would sit back while America is flooded by Third Worlders) must understand that we want Dr. Paul to address our concerns as well. While in Congress Dr. Paul has distinguished himself as a true-blue conservative, both fiscally and socially.
If Dr. Paul wins in New Hampshire and Iowa, it will be because of the supporters of Pat Buchanan who in 1996 won NH for him and who gave him 23% of the Republican vote vs. 26% for Bob Dole in Iowa.
Martin
December 31st, 2007 at 7:34 am
The problem with a gold standard is that too many people don’t understand it, and Ron Paul really isn’t an exception. A gold standard does not replace every dollar in circulation with a fixed quantity of gold. A gold standard simply fixes the price of gold and requires monetary authorities (bankers) to trade gold at the fixed price. The problem with a gold standard is not the quantity of gold but the difficulty of fixing the price of this particular commodity and thus establishing the value of everything else relative to the value of gold. Extending credit always creates money, whether or not gold is the standard of value. The ease of Federal “borrowing” is a problem with our monetary system, but a gold standard is not a realistic solution. A monetary system regulating the price of a commodity index, rather than a price of credit, is worth considering.
John Bennett
December 31st, 2007 at 7:34 am
I am suspicious of arguments containing rhetorical questions and am surpprised that as critical a thinker as Justin Raimondo would stoop to using them.
“Why allow anyone from these so-called “terrorist nations†entry into the US for any reason whatsoever – just to be on the safe side?” is a perfectly valid question worthy of serious consideration in terms of, among other things, cost/benefit. It might be argued, for example, that had such a policy been in effect prior to 911 over 7000 American lives would have been saved, about 50,000 American injuries avoided, a trillion dollars in debts avoided, and over a half-million Iraqi and Afghan lives spared and the cost of oil might not be pushing triple digits.
And “…then why not invade them, kill the terrorists, and be done with it? “ is a gem of red herring of the slippery slope variety.
As for students returning home with wonderful ideas, it would be a more convincing argument had dear Justin provided at least a modicum of evidence that such (if it is in fact the case) has manifested itself in any ways beneficial to America.
Similarly, “…politically foolish, economically counterproductive, and a prelude to much worse.” means what, exactly?
Dismissing Ron Paul’s contention out of hand without careful consideration of its real implications seems exactly the kind of knee-jerk reaction that Mr. Raimondo usually rails against.
John
Martin
December 31st, 2007 at 6:41 am
I expect gold to rise to $2000/ounce ultimately, because U.S. monetary policy is deliberately inflationary. The question is when? I don't expect gold to reach this price soon, but if you do, you're free to buy and hold gold, as you should be of course. Gold is already a legal tender if you want it to be. Nothing prevents you from bargaining with gold now if that's what you want to do. I suppose a little inflation is not a bad thing, but Federal spending is not sufficiently constrained.
People create money through free economic transactions, but gold is not created this way. If I extend you credit and your credit is good, then your obligation to repay me is valuable, and I may bargain with it. Requiring me to possess gold before extending credit is economic nonsense. A free economy doesn't work this way and shouldn't work this way.
If I'm a woodsman and you're carpenter, a banker may extend credit to both of us and to himself, so that I may harvest lumber for all three of us while you build houses for the three of us and the banker accounts for our exchange of services. I then pay you for carpentry services and pay the banker interest (for his accounting services), while you pay me for lumber and pay the banker interest, and the banker pays both of us and himself.
This extension of credit begins with nothing but our expected productivity and ends with nothing but our produce, three houses. Money is both created and withdrawn from circulation in this process. Gold does not enter and leave existence this way, but real a economy creates and then withdraws money this way continuously. Money is an accounting device, a token of entitlement to purchase. A decentralized monetary authority is conceivable, but confusing money with a commodity is folly.
John Lowell
December 31st, 2007 at 7:57 am
Had you seen any mention in the passage you quote above of support for illegal immigration? I hadn’t. Buchanan opposes all immigration as you would seem to imply here? I don’t think so. But I do recall Buchanan’s endorsement of George Bush for President in 2004. Ain’t that something?
salem s
December 31st, 2007 at 6:59 am
Isn't Iraq an American colony now?!
Mount
December 31st, 2007 at 8:22 am
Justin: I respect your views and agree totally. Ron Paul is too good to be a President. The next president will be worst than the current one (Prophecy). Please let me know the worst candidate in your view and I will bet on him.
David W.A. Robertson, Inverness
December 31st, 2007 at 8:25 am
Probably the best way to understand Dr. Paul’s position on commodity money is to read his book “The Case for Gold”,written with Lewis E. Lehrman,which is published by the Mises Institute. It started life as the Minority Report of the Gold Commission in 1982. It can be downloaded free of charge at http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/books.php.
Dr. Paul is already on record as stating that he wants gold and silver to be designated legal tender and used as private currencies in competition with FR notes. Gold is presently trading at about $830 per ounce and is expected to rise to at least $2000. If it is monetized this could go much higher. At the very least it will offer competition to FR debt money. In time it could so outpace debt money that the national debt could be retired with a few ounces of gold! Dr. Paul is one very smart man. Those who fearmonger on the line that there is not enough gold to finance the world economy simply do not understand the situation or they have another agenda.
Since he is a fan of the Austrian School it is likely that Dr. Paul does not favour any government involvement in money creation. Austrians believe that money is created by people quite naturally and there is no need for government to get involved.
Bill
December 31st, 2007 at 8:48 am
Back in the 70′s when I was attending Penn State, in our apartment complex (I was married and lived off campus) at the end of our row were four Iranian students. They were engineering students and one was nuclear engineering as was I.
Here on student visas, legally. It was party time at that apartment every weekend, with babes just throwing themselves at the cute Iranians. Then Khomeini returns. Did these four thank God they had visas and weren’t caught up in the fundamentalist, hate-America fever Khomeini brought with him?
Nope. They RETURNED to Iran. They were happy the revolution had begun. Lost track of them, but I’d bet the immediate future for them were as irate students holding hostages, then later as gears in the nuclear program. THAT is why we should stop student visas for folks from “terrorist” natons. We don’t owe anybody not a citizen an education. Period. If their home country funds terrorism or actively participates in terrorism, they can go elsewhere.
By the way, the American communists were fully in support of Hitler while Hitler and Stalin had a pact, and together raped Poland. It was only after Hitler attacked Russia in 1941 that the commies in this country suddenly were against Hitler. Up until then, the commies here fought against intervention and were staunch isolationists.
Michael Birbeck
December 31st, 2007 at 8:48 am
Nobody questions the US right to protect it’s borders and to ensure an effective and fair immigration policy.
What some people find somewhat bizarre is that the US reserves the right to brand other nations as “Terrorist Nations”. Not only is this term meaningless (much like the so-called war on terror) but it is also counter productive in that it really reduces US foreign policy (at best) to a crude realpolitik and at worst, a rampant form of military interventionism and imperial adventurism untainted by the very ideals, freedom, democracy, fairness etc. that might ultimately win for the US that greatest of empires, namely the victory of a better way, a better thought, a greater idea.
salem s
December 31st, 2007 at 8:56 am
Not true!
Check this!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-04-1930s-deportees-cover_x.htm
splendar
December 31st, 2007 at 9:06 am
It’s a bad ad. It shows the paranoia state America is still deeply rooted in and punishes the innocent. If the facts are looked at, the United States is sadly & disgustingly the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the World.
So how would Ron Paul honestly define a “terror nation”? Since the US is a terror nation, other countries are to deny Americans entry into their universities?
There are “American” universities in other countries..Cairo, Egypt come to mind. So Ron Paul denies Egyptians entry into this country, it can lead to a tit for tat situation where Americans can be denied entry into other universities around the World.
I agree with RP on the federal income taxes, the Fed and removing US troops from ALL the countries around the World. But I think one must keep in mind too, that the business-world that he promotes (trading with other countries) are not always a bunch of morality angels either when they go into these other countries.
Andrew
December 31st, 2007 at 9:09 am
I think you might be a little bit too critical here but i get your point. I don’t really understand why they would choose to mention that in a 30 second ad but I actually think the ads they’ve put out recently have gotten better.
splendar
December 31st, 2007 at 9:26 am
Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN.
For me, I believe ( based on what Ron Paul has actually said), that he is all about wealth. He wants Americans to be able to create it without Federal regulations, use it without Federal regulations and enjoy it without Federal regulations and to not let the Federal government tax it.
He seems to be concerned about the wealth of the United States ( printing fiat money and obsessive government spending ) and the wealth of the American citizens. Wealth seems to be his theme along with free market capitalism. This will not lead to equalities for everyone whether they be in the United States or in other countries that may be trading with the United States.
Im not endorsing socialism, communism nor am I endorsing capitalism..they all have their owns sets of structure that lead to World sufferings. But if I do vote, it will be for RP because of this….that he says he wants the United States military out from all the other countries that they are in. They have absolutley no right to be in these places other than to try to guarantee that the trade routes with America remain open.
THIS is not serving the people of these countries in a “liberty endorsing” method. If the People do now want the American government nor American business there, then they need to have the power to be able to do business with Iran, China, Russia, Europe and anybody they desire.
They should NOT have American products and services shoved down their throats by any means, whether it be militarily or thru trade negotiations.
Scott
December 31st, 2007 at 9:41 am
I thought the video was perfect. Short, sweet and to the point.
I work in an Emergency Room, so I know full well the cost of health care for illegals. It is draining us dry.
Also, although I realize not all people from “Terrorist Nations” are terrorist.. enough of them are that we should be very carefl who we allow in to this country.
We should do our damndest to protect ourselves.
Brian
December 31st, 2007 at 8:50 am
I support the majority of what he is trying to say. The whole terrorist nation notion is a bit ridiculous. This means the Israeli lobby would ban anyone from the Middle East coming over to go to school.
I know antiwar is Liberterian sponsored but please stay on target with the notion of antiwar and not all the Liberterian philosophy. I don't agree with everything on a Liberterian platform.
Bill Bruford
December 31st, 2007 at 10:15 am
have to agree with the AD. We moved recently from an area in East Dallas totally ruined by illegal alien activity not to mention home values dropping, daily helicopter searches and gunshots. What was worse was the increase of people dumping their motor oil in their yards.
My wife is from Russia and she is adapting costing you nothing. That’s what the ad is about. When you have to look outside every 10 minutes for property damage or wake up constantly to call police you would also understand.
Ron Paul is for law and order. W/o boarder protection we loose!
As for terrorist nations. Ron has to get the message to the McCain scardy cats old people. That’s what that ad was designed to do. He know we dont want any more hostile people here in the US than we already have.
When I saw the ad I thought of Israel. That’s the only nation who got us on the wrong course in the first place. Bush has a lot of new toys thanks to them.
Grady
December 31st, 2007 at 10:15 am
I’m glad to see Ron Paul finally take a well-conceived and America first view on illegal immigration. Without repeating all the outstanding points of the ad, suffice to say that Dr. Paul is absolutely right on each point he made.
There is nothing racist or wrong thinking about wanting to lock down our borders and only allow those we permit to enter this country. That is a no-brainer that I’m sure most would agree with.
As for no visas from terrorist countries, this isn’t a matter of racism. How idiotic can a person be to even imply such. It is about defending the sovereignty and integrity and safety of our people. NO ONE has a RIGHT to come into our country for any purpose whatever. They come on whatever terms we permit, period. If another country has a policy of aggression toward America, why would we want to allow its citizens unfettered access to us? So they form a nice “impression” of us? Are you serious? Screw them and their impression. How about thinking about America and what it wants, within our own borders and for the benefit of our own citizens.
Ron Paul is right here, just like he has been right on virtually every other issue he spoken of.
redman
December 31st, 2007 at 10:23 am
The term “terrorist nation” is essentially circular: it has no reference point, no definition of a supposed terrorist nation. Thus, it is pointless to argue which nation the ad refers to. There is no way to know without asking Ron Paul himself.
Accordingly, I choose to read the ad as an argument in favor of limiting student visas in “some meaningful way” which should take into account the costs and benefits to the United States of the visas. In other words, there should not be carte blanche for anyone who seeks a student visa to be able to get one.
I see nothing wrong, racist or otherwise, with such a position. The nature of TV ads does not allow for detailed discussion, so they generally must rely on the power of a short, symbolic message. Unfortunately, that usually will leave the candidate open to all sorts of criticisms based on each viewer’s interpretation of the ad.
salem s
December 31st, 2007 at 10:56 am
Good point ,everyone should check this out,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html
Large number of Americans favor violent attacks against civilians:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/23/polls/index.html
http://lark.phoblacht.net/dialecticsofterror.html
redman
December 31st, 2007 at 11:06 am
To those who bemoan that RP is now pandering I say, “one man’s pandering is another man’s smart politics.” I see it as the latter.
1. Immigration policy is a major, major issue in this election
2. The left (Barrack-Hillary) is completely out of touch with the country on this issue. Nader (the so-called progressive), Edwards (the populist) and RP (the libertarian) agree – for different reasons – that illegal immigration is a disaster for this country.
3. Voters want to see that candidates “believe” the immigration policy needs major overhaul, not just election-year lip service.
4. There are too many student visas in this country (a major source for illegal immigrants who aren’t just crossing the border).
5. The use of “terrorist nations” really means nothing, but packs a wallop.
6. SMART POLITICS (I bet RP’s numbers go up as a result of this ad)
Sergio Reyes (Pancho Villa)
December 31st, 2007 at 11:17 am
Can you please leave Mexico, Mexicans out of this? You xenophobic bastards! First, not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico. You have here illegal immigrants from Central Americans by the millions, ditto with illegal immigrants from China.
Second, Mexico is not a “terrorist country†Why are you linking this story to Mexico and Mexicans? Stop!
Ifglawje
December 31st, 2007 at 11:21 am
I still do not see why some have freaked out here. It is well within the rights and powers of the federal government, according to the US Constitution (remember that?), to have an accurate account of who comes to the US under a student visa…and to have a selective choice in whom to accept or not to accept. In fact, every soveriegn nation has that right and should approach it seriously.
It appears to me that the Open Borders folks though they could impose their own political position on the Ron Paul Revolution, and sacrifice the US Constitution in the process. Good try, neo-Bolsheviks and cultural Marxists, but no cigar this time. A free nation has control of its borders and the right to say who and how many enter our nation.
America is not supposed to be the universal boardinghouse of all nationalities! No truly free nation is has total disregard for its borders and uncontrolled immigration. Our Forefathers established the first immigration law regulating admittance to the US in 1790! If you bash Ron Paul on immigration, you definitely are bashing the Forefathers who were much more strict.
DiverCity
December 31st, 2007 at 11:34 am
Way to go, Ron Paul! This is absolutely what we need. Don’t let your libertarianism make you a liberal, Justin!
AbsintheMan.com
December 31st, 2007 at 11:55 am
You miss the point. We dont need ANY illegal immigrants. ANY! The total rubbish that our media tells us that fruits and vegetables will rise in cost is pure soviet propaganda. Our country is starting to look embarrassing. Here is one example. Im in Los Angeles area. I shop at the 3 popular grocery stores here… Ralphs, Vons & Albertsons. They all charge me $7 for two gallons of milk now. They also charge me $2 for one cucumber and tell me its becuase theres not enough people in the fields. But if you go to a mexican grocery store like Kings Market or BuyLow, I can buy the SAME two gallons of milk for $5 and I can buy 7 cucumbers for $1. Yes, one dollar. Thats 14 cents for a cucumber, not 2 dollars. Stop believing all the propaganda that we NEED illegals. We are already getting tricked at the grocery store.
Biff Smedlin
December 31st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Ron is right on with this one. Good for him, good for the country. Justin, you are a fantastic writer and what you do here is so needed, but on this one, so many of us disagree.
DiverCity
December 31st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
You leftists masquerading as libertarians or Republicans are why some of us are squeamish about supporting Ron Paul. I’ve heard others say he’s “Anti-American” like you leftists. This gives me reassurance that Paul is Pro-American and understands that America is not a mere idea, but rather a nation and a people. Go Ron Paul!
Saratoga
December 31st, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Look, you either ENFORCE THE LAW or CHANGE THE LAW.
There is no going between!!!
Ron Paul enforces what laws we got, if you don’t like the laws, then phone your state representative to come out with a bill to change the law.
Is this really hard to understand ?
John Lowell
December 31st, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Paul is so ideologically precise on everything else he articulates, why the lack of precision here? I, for one, wouldn’t want my candidate painting with so broad a brush as to fall headlong into using the neo-con lexicon. One finds it dehumanizing enough to listen to self-serving “progressives” speak of human beings as “fetuses” without one’s standard bearer lapsing into the gutter speech of American fascism. And there’s something entirely disengenous about making an argument for pragmatism when the whole presentation of the candidate is anti-pragmatic and principled. You simply can’t have that one both ways.
Todd
December 31st, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Wow, talk about an over-reaction. It’s just an ad to show that Ron Paul wants to make immigration a normal legal process and to stop those who break the law. The “terrorist countries” comment was just a way to show that he wants a better screening process for those who might also have an agenda to harm Americans. Sorry but it falls under the category of guilt by association. It’s just a matter of national security. Calm down people. Students will still be allowed to come here, just not any of Osama bin Laden’s kids. LOL
khaleel
December 31st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Where is the proof that this is a definite Ron Paul ad? Can anyone confirm that this is real, approved, and being actually broadcasted? My previous posts questioning this were definitely posted, but they have been stripped. Now, I am investigating this at all levels. Can anyone help?
Also, in this post there was mention of the fact that of the 19 men accused of being so-called suicide bombers at least 9 are still alive and well and were nowhere near the United States during the attacks. They are absolutely innocent. I gave the web site whatreallyhappened.com for confirmation. This posting was stripped. Why?
Lucretius
December 31st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Bearing in mind that the US is the largest perpetrator of terrorism on the globe, perhaps all US citizens should be removed to some other place.
Oscar Goldman
December 31st, 2007 at 12:48 pm
This ad almost breaks my tender, vestigially liberal heart. Immigrants are what make America great, and the recruitment of foreign students to the USA is one of the best passive defenses we could ever ask for.
Why? (1) Brain drain weakens potential adversaries even better than bombs, only to much less deadly effect and (2) other countries would be less likely to attack the USA if we hosted their future leaders and leaders’ kids in our fine schools.
But those are Machiavellian reasons. America benefits from immigrants and the truly symbiotic relationship it has with them–and “open” is better than “closed” as a simple ethical imperative and a historical truth.
Michael Collins
December 31st, 2007 at 12:13 pm
“bomb Vietnam back into the Stone Age” Goldwater never said that.
Harry
December 31st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
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.
John
December 31st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Is Assrael included as a Terrorist nation?
John
Winston Castro
December 31st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
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.
Pat
December 31st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
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.
Chris S
December 31st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Um, learn your history please. thanks.
Jim in CA
December 31st, 2007 at 3:02 pm
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?
John Smith
December 31st, 2007 at 3:14 pm
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.
Ron
December 31st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
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?
Dana
December 31st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
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.
MMir
December 31st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Bwahahahahaaaaaa! You’re going on a piece of trash “analysis” by a state comtroller BOUGHT and PAID FOR by big business interests in Texas???????? You don’t anything about Texas politics, friend.
If you don’t know that Texas businesses are reaping tons off of underpaid illegal labor while passing the buck for their health care and schooling off to the taxpayers, then I got a bridge in IRAQ to sell you.
Illegals cost more than they contribute. Otherwise our taxes would be going down(or leveling off) and healthcare would be getting cheaper as they flood across the border.
Furthermore, the massive importation of skilled legal immigrants on H1B visas to DRIVE DOWN wages is another story that Ron Paul oughtta get ahold of.
You open border freaks won’t rest till our standard of living is equal to Mexico or India. And that’s where we’re headed.
Howie
December 31st, 2007 at 3:50 pm
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?
Brandybuck
December 31st, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Foreign students do NOT get taxpayer subsidized education. At least they didn’t back when I was in university. They pay the nominal listed price for tuition, which is frequently much much higher than domestic citizen students pay.
Tony Hollick
December 31st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
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
John Smith
December 31st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
You are stating there are human rights prior to (or at least on par with) the free flow of labor. Very good.
John Smith
December 31st, 2007 at 4:26 pm
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.
Jim R
December 31st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Louise makes a very good point:”but sincere RP supporters like me who have overlooked a few other irrational attitudes, like creationism belief for example, are worried.” Paul get it right on all the big ticket items,foreign policy,budget and gold standard,the Bill of Rights,and illegal wars,but he does have many bats in the belfry.He has proposed legislation to make citizenship from the time of conception.I wonder does this make a major change to the constitution? Can a person run for president at 34? What if his parents were privileged and he was conceived in the US but born on an extended honeymoon in Europe.Is he /she concidered native born? My mother was 10 months in the womb,how would she have proved that she was a citizen 1 month before other with the same nativity?
Obviously this is a ‘how many angels on the head of a pin’
foolishness and shows up Pauls duplicity.He’s not perfect,
just better than the others.
Howie
December 31st, 2007 at 4:56 pm
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.
Winston Castro
December 31st, 2007 at 5:11 pm
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.
TopAssitant
December 31st, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Don’t you folks in GB have a lot of Muslim problems? I think you need to tend to your knitten as the old saying goes. We have helped you out a lot since we kicked your bottoms, be thankful.
John Lowell
December 31st, 2007 at 5:23 pm
You’re right, not everyone likes this answer. If you’re saying that the ad were concocted in such a way as to give priority to the requirements of time and circumstance, Raimundo’s pandering criticism is particularly on point. Paul and his managers have a responsibility both to him and those who look to him to control such things. And this “the manager made me do it” explanation is not being offered for the first time. You’ll recall at the time of the racism smeer earlier this year that Paul while denying writing the articles involved and firing the person that did, expressed rather passively his inability to do very much about it, his manager having explained that he could not avoid responsibility for it! Amazing.
Rick Revere
December 31st, 2007 at 6:17 pm
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
Erik
December 31st, 2007 at 6:18 pm
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.
Saxon Joe
December 31st, 2007 at 6:31 pm
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!
abigdog
December 31st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
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.
R. Nelson
December 31st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
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.
Firecat
December 31st, 2007 at 9:00 pm
No visas for students from ‘terrorist nations’ eh? Silver lining = maybe it will apply to ‘Israeli art students’….
Nah….
Jim Wright
December 31st, 2007 at 9:38 pm
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
ozamerican
December 31st, 2007 at 10:36 pm
“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.
Tony Hollick
December 31st, 2007 at 11:04 pm
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.
———— * * * * * ————
Tony Hollick
December 31st, 2007 at 11:07 pm
http://www.STARGATE.uk.net/nobel.txt
BBC Russian Service translation of Solzhenitsyn’s Address.
Brilliantly written — one to keep
Regards,
Tony
SW
December 31st, 2007 at 11:23 pm
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,
Scott Frost
January 1st, 2008 at 12:13 am
But “doing our damndest to protect ourselves” would require not letting ANYBODY in from ANY country.
A Canadian can be a terrorist just as easily as a Saudi can. What’s to stop an Egyptian (like Zawahiri) from coming here? Or somebody from Dubai, Nigeria, the Phillipines or Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country on Earth)?
Anything that cuts off interaction between the people of two countries has to increase distrust and misundertanding. (This is the theory behind the very interesting web site photoactivistsforpeace.org )
It would also impede free trade, and, as as been pointed out before, when goods don’t cross borders, troops often do.
I don’t see how this visa ban accomplishes anything positive. It smears innocent people (with the same kind of guilt by association that Ron Paul has unfairly suffered from) and would create more resentment of Americans.
Would Americans be banned from going to these countries, either by our government or theirs? Or both?
Not everybody who comes here ends up loving us, but more people who come here to study leave appreciating us than otherwise. It is human nature to find it easier to hate people you do not know. This visa ban creates a barrier that does not make us safer.
Scott Frost
January 1st, 2008 at 12:24 am
Somebody might question what I mean by “it would hurt free trade.” It seems to me that you can’t easily trade with people if you cannot visit them. If tourist and business visas are allowed, then why bother to keep out students? Anyone intent on harming us will just use the other visas that are available. So, for this visa ban to work, ALL visas would have to be denied to people from “terrorist nations,” whatever that means. (I’m sure some nations consider the United States a terrorist nation. It is all a matter of one’s perspective. Osama bin Laden was considered a “freedom fighter” before he was considered a “terrorist.” The only thing that changed was the focus of his anger.)
Scott Frost
January 1st, 2008 at 12:48 am
But it is my understanding that Ron Paul INTRODUCED the bill. He is not simply trying to enforce a law that somebody else introduced until he can get it changed. And if he wanted it changed, he would not run on it. See below.
“Countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts” (according to whose opinion?) could easily be virtually all nations on Earth once they finally get fed up with our “we are the boss of you” nonsense.
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 488
To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 29, 2003
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Mr. DUNCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
John Taylor
January 1st, 2008 at 1:54 am
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.
Sophie
January 1st, 2008 at 2:03 am
“As a Serb how it’s done.”
They’d tell to set up rape camps for Bosnian Muslim women, and mass graves for the men. So no thanks.
Sophie
January 1st, 2008 at 2:11 am
Why shouldn’t Pakistan have nuclear weapons? Or should we instead be living in a totalitarian world where only the white colonial master race can possess them?
James A.
January 1st, 2008 at 5:24 am
So, tell me, Jed. How many come here from ‘terrorist nations?’ Give me a number Jed, since I am so obviously clueless. Then explain to me how they couldn’t possibly get that education somewhere else.
Your ignorance begins in making the logic leap to ‘ending student visas’ as if he meant COMPLETELY ending visas to EVERYONE. Yes, I do believe it was intentional for you to craft your words.
Hey, and while you are at it, why don’t you explain why nearly 50% of the illegal immigrants in this country are those that overstayed their visas?
See, you expect me to sympathize that I should allow my fellow Americans to be short-changed because you have a bleeding heart for everyone else BESIDES Americans. You look outside our borders for a cause, while people are starving and dying right here. I care about the people of other countries maybe 1% compared to what I care about the people of my own country.
Yes, the walking over a homeless man is ENTIRELY fitting.
Next you will be arguing that there is nothing illegal about illegal immigrants. They are breaking our fucking laws. So, do you also think there is nothing illegal about rapists and pedophiles, too? And don’t give me shit about how I can’t compare the two. Yes I can – both are breaking our laws. It isn’t a matter of “grey areas.” And neither are “victimless crimes.” In this case, you just don’t care about the victim like Mark above. I mean why should you? You created a nanny state you can push them into, right? Our government will take care of them, so who cares if he can’t compete with an illegal for a job, right? Am I getting warm?
You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t give a shit that some wannabe student from a country training people to kill us doesn’t get to come here and do it. TERRORIST NATION… what part of that don’t you understand? A nation that openly advocates terrorism!
Maybe you should start caring about the people of this country before worrying about anyone else.
That you would support what I just described above proves my point. You will step over a homeless man because you will assume the government will take care of him. The same government you want to take care of your illegals and poor little visa students. The ‘government’ has nothing to give that it doesn’t take from someone else. Who do you think they are taking from?
uerelo
January 1st, 2008 at 7:21 am
Who did this Ad ?!!! Pull it immediately!! Or you will lose my vote.
Barry Doe
January 1st, 2008 at 7:22 am
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
uerelo
January 1st, 2008 at 7:26 am
Outrageous! How do you define “terrorist nation”? A nation made of terrorists?????
Should we be friendly to all nations and trade with them????
Barry Doe
January 1st, 2008 at 7:49 am
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.
AnotherPaulite
January 1st, 2008 at 7:43 am
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.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe
January 1st, 2008 at 9:02 am
I think its a great ad. Most actual voters will agree with it, even if a few LP activists don’t.
Gino Madaio
January 1st, 2008 at 9:09 am
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..
Vaughn T
January 1st, 2008 at 9:29 am
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.
Gino Madaio
January 1st, 2008 at 9:35 am
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..
Tony Hollick
January 1st, 2008 at 10:04 am
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
Barry Doe
January 1st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Gino Madaio, all I can say is “ditto” “ditto” “ditto”. Well stated! And “ditto” again to your second post.
Barry
John Smith
January 1st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
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”.
DLAZ
January 1st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
It will never cease to amaze me how the far left continues to dismiss the reality of the border problem & that most terrorist are Muslim simply to further endorse illiegal immigration. The reality is that an overwhelming majority or illegal aliens are from Mexico & other failed nations from South America. If the country to the south of us were Sweden & there were throngs of blonde haired, blue eyed Swedes were not waiting their turn & pouring over the border, most right thinking people would still take issue with this. Why is it that we don’t have millions of Canadians rushing over the northern border?!? Another harsh reality is that global acts of terror are committed mostly by Muslim fanatics. Khalid Sheik Mohammed attended NC Tech University here in the States. WAKE UP!
Everything that candidate Paul touched upon in his ad is a common sense approach to addressing a problem that impacts all of us. Illegal Iimigration. The blogger Raimondo, La Raza, & CAIR are apologist & enablers.
Gino Madaio
January 1st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Louise, I agree with you for the most part. Where i differ most is on the impact of foreign workers on this country, i have traveled the southwest and have seen job after job after job that our people(mainly young people) would gladly take if they werent passed over for someone willing to work much cheaper. We do have higher standards of living and cannot compete with illegal aliens whom live a much simpler and meager lifestyle just to send their hard earned money home to their family… Its really unfair in both directions.. Immigration and especially ILLEGAL Immigration in this country needs to be taken seriously.. Its no longer the false impression that ” they are taking jobs we dont want ” . Dont fall for that propaganda because that is what it is.. propaganda..
Illiana
January 1st, 2008 at 2:24 pm
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.
Richard Brodie
January 1st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
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.
Lemmy Caution
January 1st, 2008 at 2:42 pm
There is one big difference between the “legal” immigrants patiently waiting for their paperwork to be processed and paying the thousands of dollars required for the immigration process and the illegal ones crossing the border: the former are almost universally college educated and in the middle class, and the latter are filling a vacuum in the lowest rungs of the work force, willing to work for sub-minimum wages at jobs that go begging at twice minimum wage. Any evaluation of the ethics of immigration that doesn’t take this raw economic fact into account is blinkered at best.
Harry
January 1st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
“kill the computer industry”???
Wow Justin. I never thought I would hear blatant corporatist propaganda from you. Bill Gates and Larry Ellison would be proud. They may send you a big check if you keep that up.
The whole “we can’t find Americans” is the most obvious (and successful) piece of propaganda today. Follow the money! That lie has been put out there by the robber-barons of today who make the most money off of cheap labor. How could it possibly be more obvious?
Harry
January 1st, 2008 at 2:56 pm
*applause*
Thank you for injecting some common sense into the immigration issue. An economy based on an infinite, exponential growth in human labor (population) is doomed to fail in a catastrophic manner. It’s a pyramid scheme, and the results are always the same.
khaleel
January 1st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
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
khaleel
January 1st, 2008 at 5:35 pm
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/
Scott Frost
January 1st, 2008 at 6:48 pm
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
khaleel
January 1st, 2008 at 7:44 pm
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.
Scott Frost
January 1st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
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.
Scott Frost
January 1st, 2008 at 8:18 pm
khaleel,
I totally agree with you about Fox News. Thanks for the L.A. Times link. I’ll pass it on to others.
Dingo Dog
January 1st, 2008 at 8:31 pm
…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.
jefff
January 1st, 2008 at 8:47 pm
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
jefff
January 1st, 2008 at 8:53 pm
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
Dingo Dog
January 1st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
…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.
Colonial Scrip
January 1st, 2008 at 10:24 pm
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?
jefff
January 1st, 2008 at 11:53 pm
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.”
Tim R.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:31 am
80% of all illegal immigrants come from either Mexico or Central America
Tim R.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:33 am
“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.
Tim R.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 am
“This ad almost breaks my tender, vestigially liberal heart. Immigrants are what make America great”
Yes, legal immigrants make our country great. Not 20 million ILLEGAL immigrants who have violated our laws and invaded our nation. Our schools are overloaded, our welfare rolls are growing, our hospitals in the inner cities are crowded. All with growing numbers of illegal immigrants.
Tim R.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 am
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.
Temoc
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 am
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…
Carter M
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 am
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?
spanish
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:54 am
Ron Paul is not running for governor. What people vote in state elections is not his business
Jake
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:18 am
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)
Jake
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:27 am
Thanks for pointing it out. Your support has shaken up the anti-war movement and caused them to look closely at allying with a “REPUBLICAN”. Paul deserves this allegedly unlikely cross-over support but he cannot think that what this country REALLY wants is a Tom Tancredo with a soft demeanor and a non-interventionist foreign policy. They want a person who doesn’t put political pandering over their principles. This ad was getting pretty close to that. If Paul will continue his rise, it will definitely not be without the inevitable controversy of his vastly disparate supporters, but it will also not be without a lot of legitimate criticism about campaign moves that smell like the same old S*^T.
Lauxa
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:27 am
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.
Michael Collins
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
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.
Sam
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I definitely agree with Justin, this ad is an absolute disgrace and Ron Paul should pull it immediately. I was extremely disappointed to see Paul, who has heroicly stood up to the Republican Party on privacy issues, Iraq, etc. would succumb to such as simplistic argument on immigration. (Illegal) Immigration to this country is NOT any more serious of a problem than it was in the past, and in fact probably benefits us economically…not to mention, it would be impossible to secure the border as Paul suggests…the Right is totally wrong on immigration, something I only began to realize after William Norman Grigg was sacked as editor over at The New American for pointing out that illegal immigrants just make convenient scapegoats in the ongoing assault on our civil liberties (national ID cards, criminal charges against small businessmen who employee illegals, etc.) that Paul seems to genuinely deplore…
Michael S Costello
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
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.
Florian
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 am
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.
Emmy
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:08 am
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.
Sam
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:35 am
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)
Doug Bayless
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I’m a huge Ron Paul supporter and I have to admit that is the absolute worst ad I’ve ever seen for him. It undermines most of the reasons I’m voting for him.
I’m against illegal immigration but I’m not anti-Hispanic. Heck, I don’t even buy the crap about “terrorist nations” . . . I thought student visas were a *legal* way to visit . . . so is Saudi Arabia a terrorist nation now??
*Very disappointed*, but I still plan to vote Paul on February 5th. As a registered Republican he’s still far and away my best choice.
[I posted this at reason when they picked up your story but I thought I'd come post here too.]
Florian
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:00 pm
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.
ingrida
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Hmmmm. None of the posters here sound Native American. Just how many of you anti-immigration flag-waving jingoists here had very recent ancestors who were no more than horsethieves in Europe, and who had nothing more to commend them but the price of a ticket in steerage? Remember, immigration laws were enacted somewhere during the 1920*s.
Andrew
January 4th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Eighty percent of Chinese students who study abroad never return to China. Most of those who study in America, stay in America. Why? They love the freedom and opportunity that life in the USA can give them. I have lived in China for a number of years and am not just spouting random numbers. I empathize with your situation and believe in equality as well, but let’s not go blaming the foreign students who so often make a positive contribution to our country. (I can only assume someone will follow this comment with something about terrorists posing as students….well, you’re right….but the world isn’t perfect. Sad but true.)
Aggro-crag
January 4th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Hahaha, this ad is great. People don’t realize how big of a joke Ron Paul is! It’s a shame he’s convinced so many internet nerds to follow him and his horrible ideals, but out side of the ‘net he’s just another dumb guy.
Aggro-crag
January 4th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
What, not even his racism can get you to dislike him? Why *are* you voting for him? It must be a pretty darn good reason.
Tip: this ad isn’t any coincidence!
Florian
January 4th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I agree with everything you say, and I have had similar thoughts (with regards to the mounting tally of disagreements, I am libertarian, I like the late Harry Browne). I am willing to compromise quite a bit, and a lot of people I know (lefties, friends of mine, you may have some of those too :) have turned a blind eye on some of their disagreements in order to get this war stopped, but buyer’s remorse has started to seriously kick in for me and them and for every reasonable comment I read on blogs there seems to be two or three rather uninformed comments (not to say outright xenophobic). Apart from the issue, this is also a serious tactical mistake – in my opinion – this add has done far more harm than good to Paul’s campaign. Paul has always maintained he is a Republican. While I still agree with a lot of his stances, he seems to have shifted his emphasis a lot lately, so, yeah, I think he might (a) loose this election, and then (b) wreak havoc to what people consider to be libertarian for years to come, and we’d be worse off in the end.
Antonio
January 5th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Ridiculous!…How does wanting to secure the borders, stopping illegal aliens from accessing welfare, and ending the idiotic birthright law make him look like a racist!
That’s the first think you kooks do is scream racism!.
Ron Paul is right on, we must end this anchor baby nonsense…there is no other country in the world that does this..it’s idiotic.
WAKE UP U.S.A !!!
Antonio
January 5th, 2008 at 9:41 am
You are incorrect….Nothing was stolen from mexico.
Read up on the history Larry.
Debbie
January 5th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Hmmm, looks like all you nutjobs can’t handle the truth!
End illegal immigration, stop the invasion.
Debbie
January 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am
How is it racist??? explain EXACTLY how it is racist???
Debbie
January 5th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Ditz….That’s a fitting name for you!….LMAO!
Lori Murvin
January 6th, 2008 at 8:39 am
are you kidding?? Ron Paul is absolutely correct! How can anyone look at Cali and not see what this 3rd world invasion is doing to our nation?
no, immigration laws were changed in 1965 with the Hart-Celler Act and supported by the Kennedy’s, and now Fatboy Kennedy is admitting he is wrong and our country’s in trouble, well thank you very much you low IQ idiot!
apollonian
January 6th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
so what’s wrong w. racism, u presumptuous moron?
June
January 6th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
We need a moratorium on ALL immigration. After the last great wave, we had a time out for those who came to assimilate. Now, they come by the millions, have no intention of assimilating, will not adopt the language and, in general, could care less about obeying our laws. If we want to exist as a nation, an entity that can be a world leader and help the unfortunate of the world, then we must conserve our natural resources, our finances, our language, culture and traditions. We have, instead, become a multilingual bunch of enclaves
that will never become one- e pluribus unam – this is not the cohesive nation that we must have. All those who are here illegally need to leave and further immigration, in maybe five years, will be on OUR terms, not theirs!
viktor
January 6th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
This ad is sensible and realistic. The only thing they forgot to mention was massive round-the-clock deportations.
Quit your whining, ladies.
Geno
January 7th, 2008 at 3:45 am
Senator MaCarthy was so right.
Now that those Blacklisted Commies are back in hollywood, you can enjoy all the perversions and filth you desire. The enemy is international communism, dummies. Destroy the family, destroy the peoples faith in a higher power, the State will protect you, the State will feed you, the State will teach you, We are all brothers? Not.
Mike
January 7th, 2008 at 6:38 am
I am shocked that Antiwar is taking the pro-illegal alien position. I beleive that Justin should stick to matters of war and not poke his head into the immigration debate. Just as war and mass murder are not Conservative/Liberal issues but moral issues, so is illegal immigration. It is immoral to flood this country with millions of un-educated non-English speaking people simply so the local Best Western can have cheap labor.
I can’t support Antiwar.com if they are going to start advocating the invasion of the US by illegals.
Doug Bayless
January 8th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
It’s pretty clear to me that Paul himself is not a racist. His quotes about ‘collectivist labels’ for people are pretty dang good. [ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/ ]People should be evaluated based on their values and actions not on conditions they do not control like their place of birth. Many of us believe the Paul campaign has simply overgrown anything Paul is used to dealing with and now he’s hiring the same type of heartless thugs that run the campaigns of all the other major contenders. That would cut right to Paul’s leadership ability (for anything larger than his congressional seat, for something like, you know *President* maybe) and would be a reason for me to consider dropping support of Paul, but it looks to me like he’s getting things back in order.
I genuinely believe Paul is the real deal. He seems to me a kind-hearted, well-informed, responsible, sensible person — perhaps a bit overwhelmed by the attention the good ideas he promulgates are finally getting — but not too bowled over by it.
I’m not sure what your opposition is based on Aggro-crag. Enlighten me and perhaps I’ll change my tune. If he truly doesn’t deserve it, I won’t vote for him.
As far as ‘anti-war’ goes, only Kucinich can match him on both ‘walking the walk’ and ‘talking the talk’. As far as the racism goes, that kept me away from Paul for months while I investigated the guy. I finally decided that while the ‘ghostwriter’ escapade seemed hokey to me, not only was it twenty years ago, but he has clearly, publicly, consistently, and rightfully disavowed himself from such attitudes.
His current platform is the least racist of any of the candidates [in my opinion] – certainly amongst the Republicans.
Paul is the only one that doesn’t equate being born Arab with being less-than-human-future-collateral-damage. He’s the only candidate who says he’s tired of the hypocritical “Christian” candidates arguing theology at the expense of issues, and – other than that ad that offended me – the only one that talks about addressing *illegal* immigration without equating being born south of the border with being less human than himself.
travis
January 9th, 2008 at 11:10 am
it will be years before we recognize how lucky we were that someone like paul even ran. a paul loss will only show just how wasteful and out-of-touch american society has become with what it strives to stand for.
support for paul is support for the rights and liberties of all americans. there is no other candidate on either side comparable to such a platform, and that goes far beyond net rhetoric.
Sam
January 18th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Ron Paul is first and foremost a libertarian, not a conservative, and ran as a Libertarian in 1988. Far from being a “nutjob,” the illegal immigration issue is currently the subject of a huge debate within the libertarian community and unlike you, Debbie, I am very respectful of those who would disagree with me.
My view is that illegal immigration is, like drugs, another government-created (or at least government-exascerbated) “crisis,” the proposed solution for which is, frankly, fascism. The myriad ways in which the US is creating the problem, from disastrous “free-trade agreements” to propping up narco-dictatorships in Latin America are well documented. Equally unsavory is the solution. I’m uncomfortable with the prospect of lining up for my National ID card. This makes me, according to Commissar Chertoff, either a “terrorist” an “illegal immigrant,” though I am neither.
Actually, I agree with you on one point, that we ought to end illegal immigration (my solution is simple: let’s legalize it). What we are experiencing, however, is hardly an invasion. The illegal immigrants I have known almost all return to their home countries after two-to-five year periods in the US. Especially given that the US was responsible for ACTUAL invasions and persistent meddling in the internal affairs of Latin American countries in recent memory (virtually all of Central America was turned into a war zone with Baghdad levels of violence that only ended, in some countries, in the early 1990s), the use of the term invasion seems particularly hypocritical as well.
sts
January 19th, 2008 at 9:07 am
For all of you that think you have the answer/knowledge, how many muslims live in Mexico? I didnt think you knew, its easier just to shoot your mouth off without doing research.
I’ll give you the answer. 500,000
Most of them with strong ties back to the Middle East. The terrorists could be crossing the southern border as we speak.
Oh, but lets not secure the border, lets take away civil liberties to the American people to protect the American people.
Go look it up. The borders need to be closed.
I could give statistics and facts for the rest of Ron’s views, but my point here, is, DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
And oh yeah, lets give Visas to students in terrorist nations.
Terrorist nation schools teach from a very young age to hate America. hmmmmm. They are taught to hate and kill at a very young age. If we were to get the heck outta there, there would be no fuel to make the fire and hatred larger.
Kevin Tuma
January 19th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
This critique is so childish.
The War in Iraq, awful and wasteful as it may be, is not the only important issue in this campaign. Border security IS an important matter. Railing against our Bush-Clinton induced broken borders–with their endgoal of an Amero state–does not make Ron Paul look “racist”.
My only complaint on ads emphasizing his position regarding illegal immigration is that it is redundant by comparison to the positions of the other GOP candidates, while Paul ads need to be hammering other issues as well–like our decaying civil liberties.
Dingo Dog
January 20th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Sometimes you can tell more about a candidate based on the comments of the people who support him, than the comments of the candidate himself/herself. Based on the comments I see here in support of Dr. Paul, there is no wonder why I don’t support him. Even a broken clock is right two times a day.
John K
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Dear Micah,
Your reasoning proves fallacious when you state:
“I personally find abortion objectionable, but support leaving the question up to the individuals affected, so long as we’re not talking about a viable fetus able to survive outside of the womb.”
The lives of most children outside of the protective confines of their parents home can only be described as “unviable.” Should parents have the right to perform “retroactive” birth control and terminate their three or four year old child because they can’t produce? You express a sentiment that can only be generously described as “penny wise” and “pound foolish”, and no doubt the reasoning of a “Libertarian” mindset that while seeking freedom clings to a self-imposed delusion of scarcity. Very Spartan, your moral seems based on the famous “desert island” nightmare where anything requiring the slightest attention only drains our limited resources. Should the “unviable” children be eliminated? How about “unviable” races? Some claim the entire African continent to be unviable? Do the unfit have a place in creation?
Alphysicist
January 25th, 2008 at 10:05 am
It is unfortunate that Ron Paul campaigns like this. I hope his reasons for it are only practical. The only reasonable explanation is that he wants votes, well, from a large group of people. Considering that people would actually vote for Huckabee, for following Jeehsus, and playing the bass guitar, it is conceivable that a mixed strategy leads to better results. I actually was a Nader fan in 2000, but I now understand that he had no chance. Nader´s campaign strategy was based on discussing the real problems America faced (and still faces), and his presentation included sentences with main and subordinate clauses (often more than one), whose content consisted of propositions to solve the aforementioned problems. No Jeehsus, no balloons, no emotional screaming, etc.
steven cinco
February 6th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Ron Paul has stood up for the issues and against George Bush’s agenda like no other Congressman. Democrats, whom are supposed to be the “legitimate” check on power, decided to vote their careers over the people. So now the Libs, fearing he will steel constituents, have labeled him a racist. That’s low.
IC
February 14th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?
ALL OF THOSE WHO AGREE TO THIS STUPID AD SHOULD LEARN A LITTLE ABOUT YOUR OWN HISTORY. REMEMBER US HISTORY? APPARENTLY NOT.
FOR THOSE THAT NEED A LITTLE BIT OF AN EDUCATION, LET ME SET YOU STRAIGHT ON THIS PART OF THE CLIP:
“…FOR GENERATIONS, LADY LIBERTY WELCOMED IMMIGRANTS, WHO CAME HERE LEGALLY, FOLLOWED THE RULES…”
LADY LIBERTY / ELLIS ISLAND WAS A FREE FOR ALL!!!
YOU PACKED YOUR THINGS AND GOT ON A SHIP TO GO TO AMERICA. NO VISA, NO PASSPORT, NO IMMIGRANT APPLICATION, NO JOB OFFER, YOU JUST GOT ON A SHIP. ONCE YOU ARRIVED, YOU STOOD IN LINE, GAVE YOUR NAME TO SOMEONE, GOT A BASIC DOCTOR CHECK-UP AND THEN GIVEN THE GREEN LIGHT!! FROM THERE, YOU COULD BOARD A TRAIN TO WHEREVER YOU WANTED IN THE COUNTRY. PITTSBURGH, CHICAGO, BOSTON, YOU NAME IT. YOU WERE EVEN GIVEN FOOD!! WOW, THAT IS HARDCORE!
OF COURSE, NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WERE A BURDEN TO THE ECONOMY OR TO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, NOT AT ALL. NONE OF THEM TOOK YOUR JOBS. PLUS THEY ALL SPOKE PERFECT ENGLISH, NOTHING BUT BONUSES FOR THE COUNTRY CAME IN!
BUT TODAY IT IS, LETS SEE, AN INVASION, THEY ALL ABUSE THE SYSTEM, THEY DONT PAY TAXES, THEY ARE CRIMINALS, THEY THIS THEY THAT. YEA, WEIRD HOW THAT WORKS HUH?
I BET GOD WOULD BE PROUD OF THESE HYPOCRITS, SO CALLED CHRISTIANS.
A Johnson
March 20th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Is it true that University President Bill Brody is stepping down due to allegations of Johns Hopkins University working with Military Intelligence to spy on Muslim and anti-war students?
steven cinco
July 10th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
How long before Homeland Security officially declares Libertarianism and any other group that finds itself at odds with the governmental status quo (Churches,Green Party..et al ) as domestic security threats? My guess? Not long. Our Elitist leaders know they are very close to installing new, and re-organizing current Global institutions into a more powerful form of Global Governance. And despite the fact the the American populace is either ignorant or apathetic towards to agenda in Washington, they (i.e. globalist) are not willing to risk any sort of public awareness concerning their agenda. DHS will make sure to infiltrate and discredit all those whom might throw the final agenda of global governace off it fast track. Oh…, it's true.
rallyred
September 12th, 2010 at 8:25 am
as always eveyone forgets to mention the fact that the cowards who hijacked the jets were here on EXPIRED visas. all the tapes and theorist explainations i only heard one person actually say about HOW they were able to do this. our weak immigration policies help spineless lowlifes from sandnations do their dirty work here because you don't want to upset their rights! my wife is also from russia and is now a u.s. citizen and speaks better english than the mumblemouth dirt bags that we allow in this country to stay and soak up our resources.try to walk around in russia with fake i.d.s.they have a great system you need your passport for all legal transactions.here you can get a fake ss number on any street corner.they would have put those narrowassed terrorists in gulags before they could say alla. keep putting people like we have now in office and we will be on the fast track to becoming a third world nation!
Spedent
November 26th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/10…
I believe this is why! and this is only ONE article on the issue! Go find more! :)
sohbet
January 29th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
thank you very much executives like you, I yemek tariflerireally like your blog verymetin2 pvp clean and reliable link to a web site trying to get the ban I hope I do not eat many thanks
Web sites with the music here is actually fun, chat, friendship, bi kind of people that I'm mt2 pvptrying to create an ideal environment for fusion with each other and chat environments, chatand sexual issues, as well as food, drink, and even my own social networking areas, such as creating bayan giyima single goal is to serve our valuable administrators chathope you understand
If you need
to make