Ron Paul Immigration Ad
Just now I was checking an excellent blog devoted to the New Hampshire Primary, when I saw the following Ron Paul Ad:
Narrator: For generations, Lady Liberty welcomed immigrants that came here legally, followed the rules and led productive lives. Today, illegal immigrants violate our borders and overwhelm our hospitals, schools and social services. Ron Paul wants border security NOW:
– Physically secure the border.
– No amnesty.
– No welfare to illegal aliens.
– End birthright citizenship.
– No more student visas from terrorist nations.
Standing up for the rule of law… Ron Paul for President.
A few brief points:
1) How does Ron Paul propose to pay for physically securing the border after he *giggles* eliminates taxes?
2) Illegal aliens are not eligible for welfare. The only exception is that their native born children, also known as U.S. citizens, are eligible for welfare. The way Paul frames this issue is deceptive, his people wanted to avoid admitting they are taking government aid from children, and instead mask it in terms of the boogeyman of illegal aliens.
3) End birthright citizenship. Really? This requires revoking part of the 14th Amendment, which should be cause for alarm for some civil libertarians. The political implausibility of this detracts from the message of the add, I would have left that talking point out. The word “birthright” is sort of scary though, I guess this made for better fear mongering than the infamous “anchor baby.”
4) No more student visas from terrorist nations. I’ll refer you to Justin Raimondo’s post at Antiwar.com, which says it all.
Comment by Yawn on 31 December 2007 at 3:00 pm:
“How does Ron Paul propose to pay for physically securing the border after he *giggles* eliminates taxes?”
Why put this in the form of a question? It is obvious from your *giggles* that you are not really interested in an answer.
In fact, you most likely already KNOW the answer.
Hopefully, I am the only person that will waste a minute on you.
Comment by Augur on 31 December 2007 at 3:10 pm:
Eliminating taxes is such an absurd proposal. You’re right that in that point I was poking fun rather than making a serious inquiry. However, consider how much it would actually cost to secure the border. How desperate would you be to give your family a better life? Many illegals are willing to do almost anything to get here, that kind of mentality makes the cost of actually securing the border almost incalculable.
It doesn’t seem consistent w/ the small govt mentality of libertarians to propose such a massive spending project.
While this also involves some govt regulation, what about a market approach that penalized businesses for hiring illegals (like Arizona just enacted). You eliminate the job market for illegals, you lower the level of desperation and thus the costs to secure the border.
Comment by tet on 31 December 2007 at 4:37 pm:
There you go again, Augur. You should watch your giggles and read more about what the Gentle Doctor Paul actually says about how to implement all of this.
Point one: You pay for protecting the border by ending the war in Iraq and Afganistan and bringing all non-naval troops home from overseas. All of the money that’s being used for interventions can be immediately diverted to preventing anyone from driving a nuke across the border and we could *still* begin phasing out the income tax. Hell, if we eliminated the income tax tomorrow, we’d still have as much revenue as we did in 1995. As far as I remember, the government wasn’t having much trouble running then.
In addition, last time I checked, Paul wanted to eliminate at least three cabinet departments. All of the money currenly being used by them could be diverted.
Point two: Paul is not just for eliminating welfare for immigrants. He wants to phase the whole damn system out. As it is now, it’s terrified white people paying Danegeld to prevent a non-existent revolution while the two political parties use the money to keep the underclass in its place. If welfare payments were reduced by ten percent per year for the next decade, there’d be no major social disruption, people’d adjust. The hold of the Nanny State would be loosened and all people of all races and colors in America would be free to find their destinies as free men and women.
3) Since Paul is a constitutionalist, I’m sure that he realizes that the 14th Amendment would have to be altered to end the anchor baby problem. If the states and the congress want the problem solved, they can vote on it constitutionally. I imagine that it might actually pass.
4) It would be sane to examine enemy actions which actually caused damage to the United States like the 1993 attack on the WTC and 9/11. Considering that al-Queda has its main ties to Saudi Arabia’s Wa’habists and to tribes in Pakistan, I’d start by seriously examining the visa applications from those countries.
Sooner or later, if the borders and ports are not secured, we’re going to lose a city. The situation in Pakistan is making this more likely each day. The day after such an attack, any remaining civil liberties possessed by Americans will be gone. Preventative measures are really not a bad idea, nie?
Tom
Comment by tet on 31 December 2007 at 4:51 pm:
Oh hell, as long as I’m in the middle of an anti-interventionist rant, I may as well share this with you. I think all of the other commenters here were too young to have seen Schoolhouse Rock, that’s more for my kids who are now in their thirties.
Nonetheless, I give you a commentary on government so simple a child could understand it (and a catchy tune, also):
Pirates and Emperors
I think the SR people would have approved.
Happy New Year, everyone.
Tom
Comment by Cheapest personal loan for poor credit on 9 September 2010 at 1:04 am:
Best Wishes, http://plone.org/author/personalloanforpoorcredit personal loan for poor credit, mpditk,