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.
“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.
Unfortunately, there are such things as “TERRORIST” nations:
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm
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
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!
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!
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.
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.
“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.
Maybe he means Israel.
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.
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.
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
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!
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?
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.
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.
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?
HOORAY FOR JUSTIN RAIMONDO ! ! ! Thank you. Voice of reason.
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.
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.
cry baby,go sulk in the corner.
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.
I too, am incredulous that this ad could have been “approved by Ron Paul”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
“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.
“bomb Vietnam back into the Stone Age” Goldwater never said that.
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.
Justin Huckabee. With friends like Justin, who needs enemies?
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.
“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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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!
80% of all illegal immigrants come from either Mexico or Central America
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 ?
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
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
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?
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.
“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.