Posted under Election 2012 & Immigration & Ron Paul
So says Washington Watcher:
VDARE.com wrote extensively about Ron Paul’s mixed but interesting immigration record during the 2008 campaign, including an interview he did with Peter Brimelow. Back then we noted that he was generally good on the issues of amnesty, sovereignty, welfare for illegal aliens, and above all birthright citizenship (of which very few professional politicians had then heard). He was bad on E-Verify and Real ID. And his positions on legal immigration were disturbingly vague.
But as the 2008 campaign wore on, it became clear that Paul had no idea how to use the immigration issue, with the result that the chameleon Mike Huckabee and the amnestiac John McCain (!!) regularly outpolled him among self-reported immigration patriots—greatly to the disgrace of his campaign managers.
Since the presidential primaries, Paul has been virtually silent. His post-campaign book, The Revolution, did not mention immigration at all.
Paul’s congressional website’s platform for 2010 was identical to that for 2008. He called for increased border security, rejection of amnesty, an end to birthright citizenship, no welfare for illegals, and a vague “true reform” of legal immigration.
On the legislative front, Paul has been Missing In Action. He voted against the DREAM Act, but has not co-sponsored any significant piece of immigration legislation.
Now, at last, Paul has finally given a comprehensive discussion of his views on immigration—in his latest book Liberty Defined, where he lists his positions on fifty different issues.
But what he—or the left-libertarian faction that seems to have his ear/ byline after the strange death of Rothbardian paleolibertarianism—actually says about the issue of immigration is a profound, and in fact tragic, disappointment.
Ominously, Paul begins by trying to triangulate between the Open Borders Left and a non-existent restrictionist straw man.
[Continue reading and you will find that Paul is beginning to sound more like Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich on immigration.]
In 2008, I gave Paul’s campaign money and voted for him in the primary. This time around, however, if Ron Paul has in fact become a Newt Gingrich on immigration, I won’t support him.
Bede on 29 Apr 2011 at 9:00 pm #
This article is extremely disappointing. Read some of Paul’s quotes on the Arizona Immigration law or enforcement. He sounds like Barack Obama! Unless Paul comes out and drastically changes his tune, I won’t be supporting him.
DW on 29 Apr 2011 at 9:25 pm #
What is disappointing is the number of allegedly small government “conservatives” who have no problem with police state tactics as long as they are tied to their pet causes. I would gladly support a state law sanctioning employers. Hell I would support a corporate death penalty law for repeat offenders. But the Arizona “reasonable suspicion” nonsense is inexcusable garbage that only increases the destruction of liberty.
Catholic Trotskyist on 29 Apr 2011 at 9:36 pm #
Great news. Now my only true obstacle to supporting him is some economic issues, since I think he’s great on social issues and foreign policy.
Most people in America are becoming more and more multicultural, and I celebrate this beautiful advance toward globalism. The only problem is the multinational corporations and corrupt governments ruining the name of globalism. All borders should be opened, all nations abolished and a world government instituted. Ron Paul is not there yet, but maybe he will be before the end of his life.
RedPhillips on 30 Apr 2011 at 2:57 am #
From what I have seen, I think the language in Paul’s new book is problematic, but it is unfair to hold Paul’s opposition to Real ID against him as far as his immigration scorecard is concerned because a lot of immigration restrictionists oppose Real ID on grounds that don’t have to do with being weak on immigration. Paul is right to oppose Real ID.
RedPhillips on 30 Apr 2011 at 3:15 am #
DW, there is no reason to put conservative in quotes. Conservatism is not an ideological commitment to small government per se. It is the desire to conserve things. (Go figure.) Nothing could be more fundamentally conservative than opposing mass immigration and the change that inherently brings.
Also, it is time for people to grow up and face reality. Immigration enforcement is inevitably going to rely on racial profiling. It must if it is going to do its job.
I have red hair and speak with a Southern accent. If I’m pulled over, it is highly doubtful I am an illegal alien unless I came over here illegally from Wales as a kid young enough to develop an accent. However if an Amerindian man who speaks only Spanish and no English gets pulled over the odds of him being here illegally are much higher. Please tell me how you propose we enforce immigration restrictions if the people responsible for enforcement can’t make eyeball judgments?
Woden on 30 Apr 2011 at 9:08 am #
I too was a big supporter of Paul in ’08 — donating, volunteering, etc. — but if Paul refuses to adequately address the immigration issue, or more disturbingly continues to use language like this, I don’t possibly see how I can support him.
It’s sad that so many libertarians are utterly naive when it comes to immigration. Typical rope-seller mentality.
Chris Hewlett on 30 Apr 2011 at 11:15 am #
I think I will have to flip-flop. I can’t support Paul based on his views on immigration. I suppose if he made it through the primaries and was on the general ballot I would pull the lever for him. I’ve never understood or trusted libertarians on border issues – they sound so much like leftists.
Kirt Higdon on 30 Apr 2011 at 11:52 am #
I pretty much agree (some qualifications) with Ron Paul’s comments in his new book concerning immigration. I especially appreciated his favorable remarks concerning the Catholic Church’s work with immigrants. But I would support him again in any case this year because (apart from the extreme case of advocating mass expulsion of immigrants) this is not a deal-breaker issue with me one way or the other.
To Red, I would ask, have you ever actually been “pulled over” by the Border Patrol? I was pulled over once about 60 miles within the US border when I was returning with my wife from a brief trip to Mexico. We had crossed the border at a check point without incident. We are both white American in appearance and the BP did not have a chance to hear our accents, which are sort of average non-regional American, until we were already stopped and challenged. When we both produced American passports, this in itself was treated with suspicion and we were required to explain why we were carrying US passports within the US. No prizes for guessing that one of the Border Patrolmen was an Indo-American mestizo; down here many if not most of them are.
When I was still living in California, I was once returning from a brief business trip to San Diego with two colleagues – one a white guy who was driving and the other a Caribbean woman of East Indian ancestry who was dark skinned and spoke with a noticeable accent. We were briefly stopped at a BP checkpoint north of San Diego, but just waived on through without being asked any questions at all.
On another occasion, my youngest son, very obviously white, reported that he has hassled by mostly mestizo ICE agents when returning from a trip to Germany and arriving at the LA Airport.
Most conservatives have their favorite police forces to which they want to give more power. Libertarians are quite a bit more consistent on this. So I would say, beware, Red, of whom you want to give the power to pull people over just based on looks. You never know who might pull you over because they’ve decided to profile redheads.
Michael on 30 Apr 2011 at 11:53 am #
This should come as no surprise. It is a standard, or at least not atypical, libertarian view; one where individual freedom (to do whatever one desires, as long as the action is non-violent) is a first principle. On the other hand, Paul’s immigration platform would be partially countered by the dismantling of our welfare state. That is to say, if welfare transfers were stopped, much illegal immigration would also end.
One will never get 100% in a candidate. Libertarian ideas are at best only partially compatible with tradition. Obviously, if the choice were among one of the Gingrich-Palin-Huckabee neocons, Obama, or Paul, the latter could well be the best choice.
Political Byline » Blog Archive » Hmmmmm: Ron Paul softening on Immigration? on 30 Apr 2011 at 12:46 pm #
[...] Republican, Republicans, Right Wing Stupidity, Ron Paul This is quite interesting: (H/T to the Conservative Heritage Times) Congressman Ron Paul’s apparent entry into the presidential race will certainly be welcomed by [...]
roho on 30 Apr 2011 at 5:52 pm #
I have to admit that I’m disapointed, but I can’t have everything in politics…….I still feel that NOBODY owns Dr. Paul, and somebody owns all of the rest.
I believe that Seccesion has a better chance under a Ron Paul Whitehouse, and I still want my little piece of “Old America” like the confedrates wanted “Old Virginia”.
Steve on 01 May 2011 at 1:07 pm #
I finished his book Liberty Defined, on Friday. In my opinion, he is the only Candidate worthy of my vote. While he isn’t perfect on Immigration for my taste, he believes in following the Constitution in ALL aspects of Government. Isn’t that the most important issue?
The Constitution is silent on Illegal Aliens. The proper course for those upset is to push for an amendment.
Voting for anyone else is voting for a systemic collapse. All the rest love the Fed and it’s inflationary money creation. All the rest love unconstitutional welfare, and warfare.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2011/04/29/constant-conservative-ron-paul/
So, if your for systemic collapse, chose Romney, Gingrich, Palin, or another neocon. If your for Sound Money, and constitutional governance, vote Ron Paul.
Matt on 01 May 2011 at 4:37 pm #
I think Ron Paul’s stance on immigration is informed by two things:
(1) His first-hand knowledge of how difficult it is to get things done in a humane manner on the Federal level.
(2) And his refusal to pander to anyone by pretending that he doesn’t know about (1).
E-Verify, the end of Birthright Citizenship, and the “virtual fence” are all ideas that are intended to produce a good end, but they’d be impossible for today’s Federal Government to implement or enforce. And, in lieu of proper enforcement, something like the TSA’s insistence that all passengers are suspects would aborn. The job wouldn’t be done any better than it was before, but everyone, everywhere would pay with decreased privacy and increased expenditures.
The only immigration reform that can be done at the Federal level by an organization like our present government bureaucracy would be a reduction in work visas. To find out where Ron Paul truly stands on this issue, find out what he thinks about that.
Woden on 01 May 2011 at 5:59 pm #
“While he isn’t perfect on Immigration for my taste, he believes in following the Constitution in ALL aspects of Government. Isn’t that the most important issue?”
No.
If through mass-immigration America ceases to be America, and becomes some alien nation, than I could care less about the Fed, sound money, etc. It won’t be our country anymore.
Weaver on 01 May 2011 at 7:12 pm #
Woden,
aren’t we already destined for an unAmerican America? I agree with you that immigration is the issue, but I fear we’re already destined to become an aging minority. Among 3-year olds, nonwhites are already the majority.
Weaver on 01 May 2011 at 7:15 pm #
Steve,
the Constitution hasn’t been followed for years, and there’s no support neither by social and business powers nor among voters for such a dramatic transformation. As for appeals to tradition as the basis of a dramatic revolution (the return to the Constitution would be revolutionary), these newcomers don’t revere the liberal ideals of dead white men – foreigners in their eyes.
The Constitution is a distraction as is libertarianism. I admire such noble intentions, but they’re incapable of bearing fruit. At best you’ll annoy our rulers into officially adopting a new Constitution.
Sam Francis wrote The Constitution R.I.P. (pdf) in 2000. It’s still applicable.
Reg. libertarianism, who but bourgeois whites and perhaps Cubans are attracted to it in large numbers? Latin states demand big government, and America’s citizenry is increasingly Latin and generally third world.
Weaver on 01 May 2011 at 7:47 pm #
I’m not preaching doom and gloom, but I hate to see folks chasing false hopes. We ought to act as we’ll be acting in ten years. Why waste time – why not now?
Apologies for preaching.
Imminent, Iran, allcock, guest login, military intervention, military power, posted apr, prime target, sovereignty on 02 May 2011 at 1:48 pm #
[...] Does this incidence sound eerily similar to something transpiring today? If it doesn’t it should. Currently there is an international row between the U.K. and Iran regarding Iran’s seizure of 15 British sailors on a ship that Iran claims ventured into Iranian waters. The British government vehemently denies the Iranian state’s official stance regarding this incident, and claims that Iran illegally seized a ship that was still officially in Iraqi waters. In the meantime, the U.S. has intervened, with President Bush stating his unequivocal support for Britain and calling for the unconditional release of the British sailors and Iran’s continuing Additionally on this topic you can read: http://conservativetimes.org/?p=8673 [...]
Woden on 03 May 2011 at 10:47 am #
“The Constitution is a distraction as is libertarianism.”
“Reg. libertarianism, who but bourgeois whites and perhaps Cubans are attracted to it in large numbers? Latin states demand big government, and America’s citizenry is increasingly Latin and generally third world.”
100% in agreement.
R.P. McCosker on 03 May 2011 at 9:27 pm #
Woden wrote:
“It’s sad that so many libertarians are utterly naive when it comes to immigration. Typical rope-seller mentality.”
Unfortunately, speaking as a longtime libertarian myself, many libertarians have an idealistic, overly rationalistic approach to political issues.
It is true that, in a better world, people should be able to live wherever a property owner permits them. However, the reality is that we live in a world of politics and coercive governmental dominion, and it makes a great deal of difference who occupies the political sphere in which we reside. Idealist libertarians refuse to get that — they refuse to examine the political context of immigration and only look at the narrower principle of property rights.
Unfortunately, in the fallout from Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign, Paul has allowed far too many of these heads-up-their-backsides libertarians to infiltrate his organization.
Is Ron Paul a politician or a religion? | Conservative Heritage Times on 11 May 2011 at 2:28 pm #
[...] Much has been said at this site about Ron Paul’s apparent change of heart on the issue of immigration. In 2008, Ron Paul was running anti-amnesty commercials; now, in his new book, he seems to justify guest-worker programs (often code for amnesty), and sets up restrictionists as strawmen (misrepresenting their views), a tactic used by leftists and neocons. [...]
So who's your Favorite Presidential Candidate for 2012? - Page 9 - Grasscity.com Forums on 18 May 2011 at 6:51 am #
[...] [...]
Ron Paul, Racism, the Newsletters, and PaleoLibertarianism | Conservative Heritage Times on 02 Jan 2012 at 8:18 pm #
[...] would look like Pat Buchanan), as recently noted by Ellison Lodge. Ron Paul’s recent support of mass amnesty in his new book is quite troublesome (contrary to his anti-immigration stances in [...]