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.
Wow, that Dana’s sure got a crush on Ron Paul, eh?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can you refer me to the term “illegal” alien in the Immigration and Nationality Act? Sounds like you are “spinning” the law.
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.
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.
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.
Now, I am so sorry to predict that Ron Paul will not be elected president.
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.
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.
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%.
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.”
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
This wikipedia recitation should be required reading for all historians and politicians, among others.
I wouldn’t assume that “terrorist state” means states on the current state sponsors of terrorism list.
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!!!!!
Is this at all true..?????…..Doesn’t seem to fit the Ron Paul Profile..????>..
Don’t know until he himself comments….
R
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I pasted “you’re” where I should have typed “your,” and yes, I understand the difference.
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.
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.
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.
I live in massachusets. if students from terrorist countries were not allowed to BU, MIT, Harvard and the like we would cease to exist
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Paul’s entire immigration policy is a glaring contradiction to the rest of his campaign, those surprisingly few see it.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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).
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.
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.
You sure sound like a racist to me.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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..
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.