Posted under Immigration & Ron Paul
As noted by Red, here’s what James Antle says:
Is Ron Paul the next “pro-immigration libertarian” to bedevil conservatives? VDare‘s Washington Watcher columnist surveys Liberty Defined, Paul’s latest book, and finds a “tragic turnaround on immigration.” In an email to supporters of his PAC Friday, Tom Tancredo accused his former congressional colleague and fellow 2008 Republican presidential candidate of doing a “180 turn” on immigration and “standing with La Raza and the Chamber of Commerce.”
“I have served with Ron Paul in Congress for ten years and consider him a friend,” Tancredo continued. “While we have differed very publicly on issues such as the threat of Radical Islam, he had generally been an ally on immigration in Congress. He was a solid vote against amnesty, a leader in ending birthright citizenship, and joined my Immigration Reform Caucus.”
According to these critics (I haven’t read Liberty Defined yet), in his book Paul repeats cliches about illegal aliens only doing jobs Americans won’t do, canards about using the Army for mass deportations, and comes out for some kind of “generous visitor worker program” that bars participants from receiving government benefits. Paul remains opposed to amnesty — though Tancredo characterizes this last position as “amnesty with an ‘asterisk’” — and birthright citizenship, but is also against Arizona’s SB 1070, E-Verify, and employer sanctions against hiring illegal aliens.
What has long separated Paul from open-borders libertarians is his belief in borders and national sovereignty, plus his agreement with Milton Friedman that a welfare state cannot have unlimited immigration. But he has never to my knowledge been interested in restrictionism per se, though as a Rothbardian he ought to be familiar with libertarian arguments for it, and some of these positions that offend immigration restrictionists are nothing new. There are also legitimate civil libertarian concerns with some of the restrictionists’ pet legislation, like Real ID.
But if these Liberty Defined summaries are accurate, it does represent a shift in Paul’s immigration rhetoric away from the classic paleo position, perhaps in anticipation of competition with the more conventionally open-borders libertarian Republican Gary Johnson. Dan McCarthy worried last year that “instead of the Johnson-Paul tag team making anti-statist and anti-interventionist views more mainstream, Johnson might sidetrack Paul into discussions that would make it easier for the party establishment to marginalize both of them.” We’ll see.
Paul is now sounding the La Raza / Linda Chavez / Obama talking points such as ”illegal aliens only doing jobs Americans won’t do” (which is a lie) and now, like Bill Kristol, supports a ”generous visitor worker program.” Doesn’t Paul realize the problems with legal immigration? Doesn’t he care the both legal and illegal immigration are driving down American wages? Perhaps these concerns don’t materialize in his fantasy libertarian land.
DW on 02 May 2011 at 8:13 pm #
Why would anyone ever believe a word Tancredo says on immigration? Tancredo is a serial lying fraud on immigration. He is a man who ran a single issue campaign on immigration, only to throw that oh so important issue under the best to endorse McCain of all people. The reason? Tancredo like virtually all Republicans ultimately only cares about one thing – maintenance of the empire. To Tancredo making the murder of innocent Muslim children an Olympic sport is more important than actually taking a real stand on immigration.
Bruce on 02 May 2011 at 8:18 pm #
Bede, don’t you mean a 360 on immigration?
Bede on 02 May 2011 at 8:25 pm #
Yes, it would be a 360 from where he originally was, but in 2008 he did toughen his position and claimed he had changed his views on immigration from his earlier, radical open-borders libertarianism.
In 2008, NumbersUSA gave him a grade of B. That grade has now dropped to a C-, and will probably drop more.
Weaver on 02 May 2011 at 9:25 pm #
Bruce,
where are Nate and Kyle anyway?
Chris Hewlett on 03 May 2011 at 10:15 am #
The term is “Taking a 180″. If you “Take a 360″ you end up heading in the same direction as at the beginning. It’s a circle.
Woden on 03 May 2011 at 11:17 am #
I think 180 vs 360 was best discussed in Last Action Hero:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL135uL2XZA
RedPhillips on 03 May 2011 at 12:30 pm #
Chris, it’s an inside joke. One of our spoof posters used to say 360 degrees, but I’m pretty sure it was part of his spoof act.
Is Ron Paul a politician or a religion? | Conservative Heritage Times on 11 May 2011 at 2:29 pm #
[...] has been said at this site about Ron Paul’s apparent change of heart on the issue of immigration. [...]