Paul supports open immigration, so long as it’s legal
The libertarian Republican congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, interviewed at Vdare, has good positions on illegal immigration, and even proposes a Constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship of children of illegals. He’s against existing government benefits programs that serve as a magnet for illegals and are a huge drain on society. But …
What is your view on legal immigration?No surprise in any of this, but it’s useful to underscore the fact that Paul has no notion of American culture or nationhood beyond the bare legal fact of sovereignty. He has no problem with America turning into a Muslim or Mexican or Chinese country, or all three. He supports the principle of both indiscriminate immigration and unlimited immigration (i.e., outside-the-quota extended family preferences) incarnated in the 1965 Immigration Reform Act. He is, in short, a liberal.
Mark Jaws writes:
Perhaps candidate Ron Paul is going as far as he politically can in pushing strongly for a nationwide crackdown on illegal immigration and the abuse of the 14th Amendment, while leaving legal immigration alone for the time being. When those aforementioned goals have been achieved, and the political climate has changed more to our liking, then the nation can seriously look at curtailing legal immigration, which in my book is a tougher nut to crack. After all, the Left did not give us systematic anti-white legislation in one fell swoop back in 1964. First it was civil rights, then the Immigration Act of 1965, then affirmative action in 1968, followed by multiculturalism of the 1980s, and in 2003 the Supreme Court decreed that “diversity was a compelling state interest,” and thus OK to deny whites their constitutional rights guaranteed under the 14th and 15th Amendments.LA replies:
Mark Jaws is saying that a political person who takes a considered position on a certain issue does so not because he believes it but because, despite the fact that he really has a different position, he is forced by political pressure to take the position he actually does take, though he doesn’t believe in it. What is there in Paul’s entire career and his expressed libertarian philosophy that would lead a reasonable person to believe that he “really” supports a reduction in legal immigration?Daniel writes:
But what better way to change that climate than to make the immigration a (the) major issue of the presidential campaign, right?George writes:
Mark Jaws wrote: “Perhaps Candidate Ron Paul is going as far as he politically can in pushing strongly for a nationwide crackdown on illegal immigration and the abuse of the 14th Amendment, while leaving legal immigration alone for the time being.”LA replies:
There are no great options. If there were a GOP candidate who at least took some decent positions on immigration, then he might be worth supporting. But what would that minimal decent position be? For me, I think it would that he absolutely opposed amnesty, now in the future, and that he was serious about ending illegal immigration. Giuliani says his position is “end illegal immigration.” But then, once it’s ended, he wants amnesty and guest workers. So he wants to end illegal immigration only as a means of getting to his real goal which is to increase immigration. Such a person is out of the question as far as I’m concerned. So it seems to me the minimum is: no amnesty, ever; ending illegal immigration; and no increase in legal, though it would be far better to get a candidate committed to decreasing legal as well. Also, a commitment to ending birthright citizenship for illegals is essential, as is deporting all criminal aliens when they finish their prison term.Mark Jaws writes:
I will go with any politician—conservative or libertarian—who is willing to secure the border, offer no amnesty, crack down on the businesses employing illegal immigrants, and end the business of anchor babies. That in itself is as far as we can go right now. Assuming we can get those passed, THEN the NEXT STEP will be to illustrate how much LEGAL immigration is taxing our infrastructure and filling our country with unwilling, and costly unassimilables. With the baby boom generation going on social security and Medicare within the next five years, the kitchen will be filled, but the cupboard will be bare. Thus there will be no sympathy for importing third world burdens and no room for inane platitudes about this being a nation of immigrants. A mountain is climbed one step at a time.Orrin P. writes:
You are correct sir.LA replies:
Interesting. A libertarian is not only blind to culture/nationhood, he is blind to any notion of a political society as distinct from the workings of the market.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 15, 2007 03:22 PM | Send