Justin Raimondo has, predictably, gone apesh$t over this “disgraceful” ad. Let’s hope RP sticks with it, puts it on the air, and ignores the anti-social individualists who equate the existence of actual nations with Nazism and communism.
This is about a cheap and unspecific as an ad can be. Saying you are “for” something doesn’t mean anything! Pols constantly say they’re “for” this or that, but that’s often just grandstanding or opportunism working. Notice that RP still REFUSES to say what he would do about the 38-40 million illegals in the U.S., the most important issue facing CA, Texas and other large states.
Raimondo’s fit ought to remind us that libertarians, even “right-libertarians” are lefties, that is they are not standing in defense of Western civilisation. That is what a man of the right does: he defends his civilisation, within subsidiarity.
The best way to keep out jihadists is to keep out Muslims. Indeed, immigration in general is at best neutral to a nation, unless the immigrants are similar to the natives and are being used in a demographic struggle, e.g. Russia would probably like Slavs and other Europeans to move into Siberia.
Anyone that has ever looked at the real numbers that “Numbers USA” and many other think tanks have compiled, has to recognize that addressing “illegal immigration” alone, is not enough…………Any comon sense immigration policy has to “Roll Back” the numbers of incoming immigrants period!………….Decisions about who can and can’t come to America has to be decided. Perhaps an end to immigration for some time is even the answer?………………America can not fight a culture war at the grassroots level while being overwhelmed by a tidal wave of contrasting cultures. As a Paleo, this is the side of Libertarianism that smells of Liberalism, and I disagree with Raimondo on this……………….I would have to see a study on how many students actually go back home, and how well are they tracked after they fall out of the University System?
I could fairly be described as a cross between a paleocon and paleolibertarian. But only within a shared cultural context whereby shared customs and traditions does by and large govern individual behaviour can a minimal government exist. If people have different cultures and particularly conflicting cultures then you must have a strong government to enforce the peace. This strong government overtime to enforce the peace will have to either favour one culture or it will impose a new set of rules to govern private behaviour. Should there not be a dominant culture then the government will play one group off against the next, thus increasing conflict. The strong governments in the West have tended to impose its own rules in opposition to all traditional cultures. Unrestricted immigration must ultimately lead to tyranny. Unrestricted immigration is the importation of conflict. And to paraphrse, conflict is the health of the state.
Good link Harold……………Try to imagine a white neighborhood that has been using murder for decades to purge the neighborhood of blacks or latinos, with white supremist graffeti on the buildings clarifying the borders of their turf?………………..The white human mind has trouble even imagining it? The PC Police would call in an airstrike of napalm from the Pentagan!
As long as what you believe is either rationally believed to be in the best interests of your loved ones/people/civilisation/etc. or is irrationally in the best interests, e.g. religions and other traditions seem to instruct followers in ways that are mostly beneficial to the civilisation, then you’re conservative I’d say. (Not to imply that Christianity isn’t true, rather such ought to reinforce that it is true.) In a society such as ours though, it’s unclear to many I think just who one’s people are…
It just annoys me that Raimondo calls himself right wing and yet doesn’t view himself a part of any group, nor seem to perceive that others view themselves as such, at least regarding domestic policies. Regarding Iraq, he certainly seemed to understand the nature of its people… and yet when it comes to Muslim immigration, he can’t see how such rational individuals could be harmful.
You know, I agree with Justin. The “terrorist nations” thing proves that even Ron Paul’s campaign is capable of being watered down. There are terrorist people, no “terrorist nations”. 5% does not aptly speak for 95. People should be judged on their own merits.
Legal immigration can be quite beneficial to a nation. It adds to the workforce, and many immigrants do indeed assimilate well (such as the Irish immigrants). I am a legal immigrant, now a naturalized citizen. I’m not going to let you guys make these kinds of blanket statements.
Ron Paul’s presidency would certainly assure that the southern border is secured while cutting anchors (which I’m pretty certain Justin Raimondo agrees with). But the president doesn’t even have the power, let alone Constitutional authority, to unilaterally deport millions of illegal immigrants all at one time.
I want stricter controls on their use of student visas. Ron Paul does too and has supported legislation to do so. This commercial is non inconsistent with his views.
However, critics of the commercial have point when it comes to the phrase â€œterrorist nationâ€ Define â€œterrorist nationâ€. Only three or four nation-states I can think of one could say has governments that supply and fund terrorists or paramilitary groups or have been behind terrorist acts Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea. Weâ€™re now supposedly buddy-buddy with Libya.
But what if a terror attack in the U.S. came from Pakistani decended British citizen who came to the U.S. on a student visa or a Maghreb decendent who came to the U.S. from France? Would Great Britian and France be labled â€œterrorist nationsâ€ then? Obviously not. Controls and monitoring have to be put on student visas but no one nation or people should be singled out.
So youâ€™re right this ad is pandering to a group of voters. Itâ€™s also politics 101. Like it or not immigration is a big issue in Iowa whether or not youâ€™re a former Tancredo supporter. One of the reasons it became a big issue is because of 9-11. If Paulâ€™s campaign team in Iowa think an ad like this can put them over-the-top and get them into the top three in Iowa so he can be taken seriously as a national candidate and people come off the fence to support him, then it has to be done. Anyone who thinks this is not a dirty process in some ways is terribly naive. Maybe it will work. Maybe it wonâ€™t. But none of this will matter if Paul doesnâ€™t finish well in Iowa. At least heâ€™s not talking about nuking Mecca.
It feels like the shoeâ€™s on the other foot now. Some paleocons last week were complaining about Paulâ€™s reference to Sinclair Lewis and comparing fascism to Christianity (which Paul did not do) and was defended by the paleolibertarians. Now the paleolibertarians are attacking Paul and the paleocons are defending him. At least this shows that the Paul movement is not a cult. We have a very diverse group of people supporting him and weâ€™re not going to agree on everything. But hopefully we can keep the focus on what we agree on and that is supporting Ron Paul.
The Paul tent has got to be the most diverse in history
Yea, you make some good points.
I just wish it was politically correct to say America ought to pursue an immigration policy that’s in its best interests, and that the best way to keep jihad out of America is to keep new Muslims from immigrating in. And if we’re looking at what is best for America, I’d wager 0 is ideal or maybe allowing in Western European Christians, but again such a stance especially wouldn’t be allowed…
There aren’t terrorist nations; though there are certainly terrorist governments. Point of fact there are a considerable number of terrorist governments. There are also nations in which there are a significant number if individuals who have real designs of terror on the US. As to whether stopping student visas for individuals can substantially impede terrorists is debatable. It is inarguable that it shuts down one avenue of terrorist coming into the country. But then there are other ways of coming in. With our wide open borders they can just walk in. Then afterwards acquire false documentation. Which does afford opportunities for detection and arrest. But for that matter coming in on a student visa allows for surveillance or at a minimum periodic observation.
There are a number of unknowns involved with student visas: the level of immigration of foreign students, the level of assimulation (deep assimulation not superficial) and the degree in which foreign students who return home decrease or increase hostility to the US. When I speak about deep assimulation I’m not speaking about wearing blue jeans and going to StarBucks. I’m speaking of inter-marrying, converting to Christianity and building his life here.
Myself I think bringing in people who do not become Americans in a real and meaningful sense is just asking for trouble. Being an American means a great deal more than the wording on a passport. At least it should mean more.
There is certainly a place for bringing in workers with rare or unique skills. But in the absence of such workers the market will provide them in time. But as we all know the system of foreign workers is being abused. My own profession has facilitated this abuse, but that isn’t surprising.
The point is, and I’m aware you know this, is some nationalities tend to dislike us. After all we’ve involved ourselves with, I suspect Muslim Iraqis, Iranians, Afghans, Palestinians, Lebonese, etc. would all be risky immigrants.
And I also realise we’re talking about student visas of course, but the two issues are so similar that I just switch over to immigration. Students will probably tend more to assimilate than other immigrants, students seem to often overstay, legally and illegally, and can marry in or have children. As well they tend to be young men, the most dangerous demographic. And too, students use our services, often tuition is cheaper than the education really costs, and influence other students, “diversity is welcome” was posted all over one university I attended.
A lot of the guys on the local university tennis and golf teams seem to be here (or were here) on scholarship, most of them are foreign, albeit mostly white Christians either from Europe or Africa. (I know the coach and a few players who haven’t yet graduated.)
Regarding deep assimilation, here’s Kipling’s “The Stranger”:
But for that matter coming in on a student visa allows for surveillance or at a minimum periodic observation.
True, so there are bigger issues, but this is still significant.
They ought to be free to tour the US and to do business here, but oughtn’t be allowed to stay too long. If they wish to have an American education, why, there’s always the Internet.
Do we really think a 3rd generation non-European is going to likely view George Washington as his forefather? If he blends in then he might come to reject the alien part of his ancestry though. Some diversity is tolerable, but don’t we have all we can handle already? If we can’t think of a reason to keep out foreigners, then there’s zero hope for America. Something new will rise out of it to replace it, something with a will to live.
My apologies for posting so much, I caught the flu this New Year’s so I’m a little groggy, but to be clear several of the foreigners whom I attended the university with have remained in the US after graduating. They get work visas, then green cards, and some marry in… It seems to be that if you can afford a lawyer and are willing to start the process months in advance, you may stay.
I know of at least one, a Nigerian, who disappeared illegally into Atlanta… He’s no terrorist though. It’s probably easier to disappear after having been here awhile and made connections.
Although paleolibertarians are not neccesarily even anti border security on principle, not even Raimondo, many (though not all) of them have the problems already mentioned. They are too absorbed in liberal political altruisms and intellectual abstractions to understand the realities beautifully described in the Kipling poem posted above, which I would personally recommend putting under “poetry” or “conservative resources” here.
There is nothing wrong with being highly philosophical. I’ve noticed that one of the biggest differences between paleocons and paleolibs is that the latter are big on philosophical abstraction (example: http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/liberty_symposium.pdf) whereas the former are mostly committed to how the culture is and ought to be. This might cause paleocons to fall on such boneheaded conclusions as full-out trade protectionism.
As far as I know, paleolibs are generally pro-border security. Certainly, Ron Paul is. But it’s not in a unilateral sense, so it may confuse the casual observer.
Oh and, I realise you’re an immigrant yourself, but you’re also already here.
If we keep out further non-Christian, non-white immigration, then maybe the US will survive… And, I realise it’s a small step from that to another sort of nationalism. But, in any case, communities and a sense of nation need to be restored. If we can’t find a reason to exclude some while allowing in others, then we ought to just ban them all.