Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

« Go Home, Ron Paul! | Main | Welcome to 08 »

Ron Paul Ad Not What I'm Donating For

I've donated a decent amount of money to Dr. Paul's campaign, but I have to say that this new ad is abysmal. Justin Raimondo over at antiwar.com largely echoes my own thoughts on the ad in a blog posting here.

For someone who states that "the collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism," Dr. Paul certainly lumps immigrants of all stripes together. Perhaps the problem is America's restrictionist immigration policy as opposed to people who want to come here for a better life? Also, while I disagree with Dr. Paul's complete restriction on visas from so-called "terrorist nations" (exactly what countries should be on that list?), I am okay with greater scrutiny of, not an outright ban on, those who choose to visit us from certain nations that have a history of producing terrorists.

Posted by Paul Gessing on December 31, 2007 07:51 PM |

Comments

Not ALL immigrants. ILLEGAL immigrants. My WIFE had to wait a long time to get here so we could get married. I'm REALLY ticked off when someone jumps in line in front of her, or worse yet acts like the line doesn't exist. You wanna change the law, fine. But UNTIL YOU DO, let's act like the law actually MEANS something.

Posted by: Louis Nardozi | December 31, 2007 08:15 PM

Legal immigrants wait in line 10-15 years is normal. That's because so many illegal immigrant in US. How could anybody justify illegal immigrant who jump the line ?

Posted by: Michael Byrne | December 31, 2007 08:20 PM

calling an illegal invading alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist. We need to crack down on the invasion, and we need to stop financially aiding terrorist countries or their kids....period! Vote Ron Paul save this country before we are all asked to show our papers!

Posted by: Traci | December 31, 2007 08:22 PM

I'm fairly liberal minded and I live and work in Silicon Valley where there are a HUGE number of H1B Visa holders working alongside me.

I don't disagree with the ad really.

* Either you CHANGE the law so there is no illegal immigration.

* Of you ENFORCE the law.

Those are you're only two choices.

The government cannot be allowed to selectively enforce it's own laws. Doing this creates a 2nd class citizen, where you have a worker that has no rights to organize and can be easily extorted.

Contrary to popular belief, there are actual Americans competing against illegal immigrants for jobs - I know more than a few. It's very difficult to compete against illegals because when an illegal immigrant doesn't pay taxes, he might get deported if he's caught - when a US citizen doesn't pay taxes, they go to jail.

I think Liberals really need to talk to some Americans who do try to compete for these jobs that they claim only illegals will take. There's a lot of them - they may not hold a degree from a university, but they are human, they are alive, and they do need work.

Posted by: Richard Wicks | December 31, 2007 08:24 PM

A few years ago I became aware of a fairly practice in many countries of pregnant women coming here on visas to give birth, so that their new-borns are given US citizenship automatically. When the Constitution was written, the voyage to this country took weeks or months. I don't think the intention of birthright citizenship was intended for the air-travel age.

Posted by: Ron | December 31, 2007 08:28 PM

"Also, while I disagree with Dr. Paul's complete restriction on visas from so-called "terrorist nations" (exactly what countries should be on that list?)"

It is a ban on student visas. I for one thought there already WAS one! I have no problem with it at all.

This is the current list of the "terrorist nations":

Cuba, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and North Korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism

The Cuba inclusion is almost purely political(read the reason why on wiki) and Paul would likely work to change their status.

Still have a problem wanting to ban student visas to Iran, Syria, Sudan, and North Korea?

I don't.

Posted by: Frank D | December 31, 2007 08:29 PM

Before you write an article you should do a little research. These have been Ron Paul's postions. Furthermore if you need clarification just look up the facts they are there for anyone to find with the click of a mouse. You could have easily found which countries he is talking about. My first comments are on the abuse of student visas the second the house bill that was sponsored by Ron Paul.

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.

Furthermore this is NOT a new position for Paul. it is NOT pandering in any way. Just check out the house bill.

HR 488 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 488
To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 29, 2003
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Mr. DUNCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

——————————————————————————–

A BILL
To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003′.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF STUDENT AND DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISAS TO ALIENS WHO ARE NATIONALS OF SAUDI ARABIA OR COUNTRIES THAT SUPPORT TERRORISM OR ARE NOT COOPERATING FULLY WITH UNITED STATES ANTITERRORISM EFFORTS.

(a) LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF STUDENT VISAS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien may not be granted a visa for study in the United States under subparagraphs (F), (J), or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act without review by the President if the alien is a national of Saudi Arabia, a country designated under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a country that supports acts of international terrorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.

(d) LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISAS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien may not be granted an immigrant visa under section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)) relating to diversity immigrants without review by the President if the alien is a national of Saudi Arabia, a country designated under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)) as a country that supports acts of international terrorism, or section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2781) as a country not fully cooperating with United States antiterrorism efforts.
END

Ron Paul President 2008!

Posted by: brad smith | December 31, 2007 08:36 PM

I agree with you Paul.

Posted by: jb | December 31, 2007 08:38 PM

I saw the new ad. To be honest, I think it's inconsequential in the bigger scheme of things. I certainly don't agree with everything Dr. Paul says. But he has the most important issues nailed on the head.

We are in a struggle for our future. We can't sit around waiting for the perfect candidate.

Ron Paul will defend our Constitution. He was the only Congressional representative to vote against Bush's Iraq war. Ron Paul supports rights to jury trials, haebus corpus, our rights to own guns, the right to start our own businesses, our rights to free speech, and individual liberty.

This will be especially important during the economic turmoil which is coming. The dollar is in deep trouble.

This country needs Dr. Ron Paul.

http://ronpaul2008.com
http://ronpaullibrary.org
http://ronpaul.meetup.com

Posted by: jeremy | December 31, 2007 09:26 PM

My wife is a foreigner and she gets ticked off to no end about illegal immigration and she gets positively livid when she hears about amnesty. As for me, I don't really care that much about illegal immigration -- it really doesn't seem like such a critical issue. As Ron Paul has mentioned, if we had a robust economy, nobody would be interested in the scapegoat du jour, which happens to be illegal immigrants.

The big issues are Peace and Liberty followed closely by the economy. Fix the economy and immigration will be about as newsworthy as the cost of parking in National Parks.

For now though, the media have been beating the immigration drum for so long, it would be a tactical error for Ron Paul to not respond with his opinion. Note the substance of his response is not tactical, he's been against illegal immigration all along. It's just a good idea to make sure the public knows his position so that he doesn't lose the "anti-illegal-immigrant" vote.

Posted by: Max in WA | December 31, 2007 09:28 PM

Its more of a Dirka Dur!!!! shoutout to the Iowa voters, no need to get your panties in a knot over it. Just some good pandering for winning.

Posted by: gorak | December 31, 2007 11:02 PM

Do you notice a trend here? The immigrants who came here legally are all behind Ron Paul on this 100%. Why do you think that is? That's because immigrants tend to know a lot of people from their own countries, and they see how many are breaking the laws to get here when they were willing to go through the legal steps even if it was more difficult. My husband first entered this country as a legal permanent resident and he supports Ron Paul's position on immigration 100%.

Posted by: Kiki | December 31, 2007 11:08 PM

Funny someone brought up the analogy of drug dealers vs "unlicensed pharmacist": Ron Paul is advocating the abolishment of FDA and legalization of drugs; the two combined means street drug dealing will indeed be on equal footing with pharmacist; neither will be licensed and neither will be hunted by police . . . nor will anyone cooking up private formula in their kitchens or grow weed in their yards. What that means is that the monopolisitc profit of drug dealing will stop, and that will be end of gang violence, just like the end of Alcohol Prohibition drasticly reduced the 1930's gangs. That indicate a clear understanding that Prohibitions and government licensing monopolies are corrupt, inefficient and not workable in real life.

Likewise, prohibition on immigration doesn't work. Outlawing the vast majority of immigrants or forcing them to wait interminable amount of time before they can come here only promote criminality. There shouldn't be any law to force spouses to wait. BTW, illegal immigration is not counted in the immigration quotas because nobody knows how many are coming in illegally, so there is no cutting in line; illegals are not in the line, duh!

Also, foreign students attending private universities do not get federal financial aid. Private universities have their own private financial aid programs, some of which are specificly targetted towards foreign students because they were private donations set up that way. Who knows, perhaps by some ex-foreign students who made a success out of themselves after graduating. Universities keep their expenses down by hiring graduate students as TA's and immigrant professors. In some instances, immigrants simply happen to be the best talent in the field; after all, the US is only 300million people out of 6.5 billion, can't exactly have the best in every field. US graduate school population, especially those doing hard science and engineering, has a very high per centage of foreign-born personnels. Aside from MBA and JD degrees, US nationals seem to have a high propensity of looking for jobs after bachelor's degree instead of spending another half decade for a Ph.D. or even Master's.

Posted by: Jim | December 31, 2007 11:22 PM

The ad clearly states that "Lady Liberty" has always welcomed LEGAL immigrants. He has a problem with ILLEGAL immigrants and students with visas from terrorist countries. Which is what the ad says. And which I doubt many people would disagree.

My problem with the ad is that it sounds too strident. Ron Paul does best when he just talks because he's so genuine and reasonable.

Posted by: ozamerican | January 1, 2008 12:29 AM

First off, I would say that all you have to do is google 'terrorist nations' and you can view the Congression list of terrorist nations as of 1999. Since you were too lazy, I have listed them for you:

* Cuba
* Iran
* Iraq
* Libya
* North Korea
* Sudan
* Syria

Second, if you want Paul to win, then you have to allow him the latitude to run a political campaign. This involves pushing emotional buttons to encourage people to actually pull the Paul lever when sequestered in a secret voting booth.

I would gauge, by the reaction of the blogospere, that his ad is right on the money. While you claim that this is not what you paid for, I would disagree vehemently. This is exactly what I paid for. Principled? maybe. Effective? definitely. I am ready for a Paul victory. I am ready for war. Where are you?

Posted by: rhys | January 1, 2008 03:51 AM

Imagine if legally buying a gun required a 10 year wait, a $5,000/fee, and the permission of your town's sheriff.

If millions of people broke such draconian gun laws, would you cheer politicians who touted how much they would "crack down" on illegal gun owners? Would you believe their claims that they didn't oppose gun ownership, that they merely wanted to enforce the law?

In other contexts, Paul has praised people who performed acts of civil disobedience in protest of unfair and draconian laws.

It's disappointing that Paul chooses to attack immigrants for exercising their rights of association, rather than the laws that make such peaceful mutually beneficial exchanges illegal in the first place.

Posted by: Chris Rasch | January 1, 2008 03:55 AM

This involves pushing emotional buttons to encourage people to actually pull the Paul lever when sequestered in a secret voting booth.

Yes, cause being tough on immigrants is what really sets Paul apart from the other Republicans. I mean, what other Repbulican candidate is talking tough about immigration? Just Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson, Tancredeo, Hunter, and now McCain. Yeah, Paul's really gonna set himself apart!

And just think of the surge he'll get from Tancredo's supporters. I mean Tancredo was doing so well with his hardline immigration stance. It's baffling that he dropped out. But more for Paul, I guess! It should bump his percentages by at least 0.3, maybe even 0.5 percent!

Posted by: Chris Rasch | January 1, 2008 04:03 AM

DON'T WORRY MAN.

You know he has to win the Republicans first. Just hold tight, brother. He'll be back to Ron Paul once he starts winning primaries.

Posted by: Greg | January 1, 2008 05:47 AM

"Paul's really gonna set himself apart!" - Chris Rasch

The point is not to set himself apart. He is trying to win Idaho right now, not San Francisco. I think the people of IA are well aware of how Paul differs from the other Republicans, but they need to see that he also cares about the issues the they find most pressing. Iowa voters need to know the Paul's anti-war stance does not come from a position of pacifism, but from hard-line defensive national strategy.

Posted by: rhys | January 2, 2008 09:59 AM

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



SIMPLE AD ERROR VIEW COUNT NOT UPDATED

Advertisement