Ron Paul: Consistently Inconsistent

Ron Paul is one to flip flop on the issue of immigration because he doesn’t want to outright admit his discriminatory or racist views that he has recently been questioned about. His discriminatory remarks do not only concern African-Americans but also undocumented immigrants which he refers to as “illegals.” He wants to pass himself off as a reasonable type when it comes to immigration but his true colors shine through.

Ron Paul was once asked:

Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.

Ron Paul “And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.”

What Paul overlooks is that there has been immigration to this country in times of good and bad economic times. In fact, the Los Angeles Times reported that immigration is down due to the recession in this country. What Paul is saying is that bad economic policies contribute to immigration which is completely false. Is he one to see the glass as half empty? What he and others conveniently overlook is that there are benefits to immigration here, whether it is documented or not.

He is no different than others who condemn undocumented immigration because of the costs associated with it. Why doesn’t he or anyone examine the profits of it? Verily, this country makes a business on undocumented labor, and there are costs associated with every business. Anyone who does not see this lives under a rock or is blinded by racism.

One of Paul’s most radical views is that concerning birthright. Humorously, a staunch supporter of his might argue vigorously, and ultimately unreasonably, about NOT amending the constitution of the United States, but he’s in favor of it, so long as it allows him to deny citizenship to a child born here of an undocumented parent.

“Well, that’s constitutional, to do it (amend the constitution). Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn’t in the original Constitution. And there’s confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it’s still confusing because individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they’re under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it’s awfully, awfully confusing, and, matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.”

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series , Dec 23, 2007

Why doesn’t he just come out and make a generalization that all Mexicans are drug dealers?

More Ron Paul statements on the immigration issue:

“I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it’s pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn’t be rewarded. And that would be the case.”

“We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.”

Does this guy have any clue as to how many parents of citizens he has insulted? No, he doesn’t.

“Because of our economic conditions, we do need workers. But if we had a truly free market economy, the illegal immigrants would not be the scapegoat. We would probably need them and they would be acceptable.”

Probably? Probably??? No, this country is completely, not probably, dependent on immigrant labor, in good or bad economic times.

Paul voted to pass a bill that would require hospitals to gather and report information on possible illegal aliens before hospitals can be reimbursed for treating them. The bill would also make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention, unless the employer meets particular conditions for exemption. The bill would specify that hospitals aren’t required to provide care to undocumented aliens if they can be transported to their home country without a significant chance of worsening their condition.

Source: Ron Paul on Immigration

This shows me another typical ingrate and hypocrite, the type that shows no gratitude for the services done in this country by undocumented laborers.

The arguments against undocumented immigration are made by a pack of ingrates that fails to see, or deviously and willfully overlooks, the profits made on the backs of these people.


5 thoughts on “Ron Paul: Consistently Inconsistent

  1. I do agree with just about every point you made in regards to immigration to this country, be it legal or illegal. Ron Paul alludes to immigrants coming to this country due to economic conditions, which means people have traditionally come here because of better economic opportunities than those which exist in their country of origin. It has been the reason for decades, using immigrants coming from México as an example. The average citizen in México is payed considerably less than an American employee would be payed for a similar job. To represent my view, I find it indispensable to retrace some background information which leads up to where we’re at now.

    The advent of NAFTA in 1994 was the beginning of the end, for both countries, and it was a premeditated and planned undertaking by the elite in business, banking, and the government, of all nations involved. It is safe to say that NAFTA helped create this economic disaster we find ourselves in. It was sold to Mexican citizens as something that would help boost México’s economy, creating a new market for Mexican products and opening the door to increased revenue by way of tourism, those Americans that would spend money in México more freely with less restrictions and fees. With each passing year, the true aim of the agreement began to become more visible. What NAFTA accomplished in the long run was to ship jobs to México so workers there could be paid a small fraction of the wage American workers would be paid.

    Businesses in México who had been able to get by prior to NAFTA began to go out of business as the years passed because American companies making say flour or some product like that, whether manufactured in the United States or México, were able to sell their product at a cheaper cost to Mexican consumers because of considerably lower overhead.

    Americans got a raw deal as well. American companies began to move their factories to México to exploit the much cheaper labor and those who stayed often used threats of shipping operations abroad to leverage things here, basically extorting employees working for these companies here into accepting lower wages and the loss of benefits, making them fear losing a job if the company they were working for did move. Those companies who stayed at times also chose to extort the government, beckoning tax cuts to remain in the country.

    Back to the issues at hand, Ron Paul’s statement about immigrants coming here for economic reasons is perfectly accurate. Yes, the number of illegal aliens entering this country is for the first time in a very long time decreasing, but only because of the backlash, because of the effect in the cause and effect feature of NAFTA. The investment a Mexican citizen makes in paying a ‘coyote’ (to help them cross) is an awful lot of money, and that cost, when weighed with the potential benefit of making it across, finding a job willing to hire an illegal alien, and receiving an adequate wage is too high now, and so much so that many would-be immigrants have chosen to stay in México, because they’d be in much of the same situation were they to cross, plus they’d be away from their family, which is another major issue.

    Of course illegal aliens play an extremely large role in the economy of this country. Any tactic that dares to tout itself as a possible ‘solution’ that would help appease the most people most efficiently involves much more than amnesty. That’s because the root of the situation is much deeper than what the great majority of politicians regurgitate in speeches. An amnesty, whether deemed ‘right’ or wrong, could legalize the illegal aliens in the country at this moment, but it does nothing to create more favorable conditions for all involved. Much against popular opinion, leaving one’s country and one’s family to travel so far to work tough jobs in sometimes unfavorable conditions, to then be vilified and turned into a scapegoat is a very difficult and emotionally draining experience. Were economic conditions to improve in México, I assure you more than half of us who find ourselves here would still be in our native country.

    Ron Paul questions at what point a line is drawn that will begin to cut back the expenditures made by the federal government for some of the programs available. I unequivocally disagree on his stance on denying citizenship to babies born on American soil, but do agree with his wanting to begin a long-term solution that will benefit both countries more. The issue of amnesty is debatable, and recent Presidents, including Obama, have talked a big game about offering some change or even an amnesty during their campaigns, but, much like his stance on the federal government’s meddling in individual states’ affairs with medical marijuana, no advancement or ‘change’ has resulted, showing the bark has much more intense than the bite. One could say the bite remains non-existent. One thing I can say very assuredly is that Ron Paul does not candy coat his views, and seeing him talk in any of the GOP debates should calm any doubt anyone may have. His responses are not rehearsed, or super-slick, and that’s because he has been championing the same message for three decades, including the initiative to end the unconstitutional Federal Reserve and his warning about the economic meltdown a decade before it occurred.

    Ron Paul has been verbal about his anger over the utterly racist War on Drugs, that arrests an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of minorities for non-violent drug offenses. In the same light, the libertarian way to truly instill more equality and curtail racism and classism is to genuinely begin holding employers who are found to be hiring illegal aliens just as responsible as the illegal immigrants who are caught and run through the system. I don’t believe in companies being exempt from punishment when punishment is being dealt to the exploited workers. If efforts are made to truly diminish this practice, it needs to be done equally across the board, and Ron Paul’s platform operates on these very principles of equality and of applying the law equally, regardless of race, economic class, etc.

  2. I’d wanted to add a point about the stance Obama touted during his campaign in comparison with Ron Paul’s. Simply saying you will do something to win over a demographic, knowing full well you can’t come through on that promise, or knowing well you WON’T come through on a promise is virtually unforgivable for me, I can’t respect or believe a politician that so blatantly goes back on their word, especially when they will not even make mention of the issue once elected or show any traceable guilt or anxiety over not following through on a promise of change. Obama has done this on many issues, but the major ones, which show again and again what that $283 million campaign was about, are:

    *the federal government’s role in a state matter, medical marijuana

    *the exit of the military within 16 months, which he practically went back on after being sworn in

    *change in immigration policy (which I’ve yet to see, in form or quantity)

    *quite possibly the most offensive, his promise to defend and uphold the United States Constitution

  3. Immigration to the southwestern U.S., whether undocumented or not, has always occurred and much much prior to the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. In fact, at the beginning of the 20th century, the United States proactively tried to entice Mexican laborers to migrate to the U.S. to work in agriculture. When that didn’t work, the U.S. offered Mexican workers citizenship! Then they came, and the agricultural sector got the number of workers that it needed But, these workers were never intended to leave the manual trade sector, of which say agriculture and brick making are a part of. Nowadays, it’s not a problem of who’s undocumented or not, it’s about there being too many of us. The attacks on Mexican-American studies in Arizona are proof of this.

    To use NAFTA as a main driver, or an example of a bad economic policy that contributes to undocumented immigration, is inconsistent because this country has a long history of exploiting foreign labor, in this case Mexican labor. It happened in the early 20th century, before, during, and after NAFTA.

    I wouldn’t be so sure about blaming the economic slump on NAFTA. How can anyone overlook the costs of war associated with Bush II? Or the lending of money for mortgages done by banks done in order to sell mortgage-backed securities?

    These are all conditions set before Obama won the presidency. This is the country that he inherited. Anyone can campaign on a platform to deliver change. Of course any candidate will tell you what he or she wants to see changed, and make proposals to implement those changes. But we’ve seen the refusal of the Republican congress to not cooperate nor to be led.

    What we have seen is the apparition of a radicalized right known as the tea party that will do and say anything to discredit Obama and make him look like he’s the problem, like he can’t lead. Elected Republicans fear these quacks because they are their power base.

    Soon after Obama came into office, he butted heads with a commanding general in the Middle East who he had to remove. So he was faced with resistance and opposition even militarily. In fact, there were, or are, military commanders and politicians that disagree with bringing troops home.

    So what is going on in Washington? Is it business as usual? Is it a case of in order for me to give you something you have to give me something? Isn’t that why Obama sent more troops to the border, in order to give Republicans what they wan’t and in turn expect them to take up the issue of immigration reform? Well we have seen no desire on behalf of the Republicans to take up this matter.

  4. These policies have not been started by Obama, but he’s nurtured and continued them, rather than taking a chance and cutting them, but he’s worried about getting re-elected, rather than doing what is right for the country, in the long-run. He took 8 months longer than he’d said he would to pull out of Iraq. Just after getting elected, he was asked about withdrawing the troops and he just nervously laughed and said he’d try to do it, eventually. What magical thing happened between his campaign and that interview that was only days into his term? He either knew what he was promising was a lie from the beginning or some back-office greasing of hands happened during that time.

    He’s reneged on his promises to de-militarize us, by going into Libya without the need for any declaration of war. He simply says it’s not a war and it’s not a war. He promised the closing of Guantanamo, which has not happened, and instead of closing it, he’s expanded these camps, which should scare the daylights out of any supporter of liberty. He’s now signed the NDAA-2012, which grants him unlimited power to disappear anyone, regardless of charge or evidence, and that, to me, is unforgivable, and is the reason he, like Bush II did, more than deserves to be impeached. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, regardless of what any fad politician of the moment may say. They will come along and try to sway public opinion with terror, exploiting people’s fears, but any true patriot, defender of liberty, and appreciator of the Constitution can decipher fear-mongering rhetoric intended to pave the way for the continuation of big government’s war racket from sincere dialogue that looks to liberty as its guide and that never undermines the country’s sacred blueprints, the Constitution.

  5. Who exactly is “they,” that will try to sway public opinion with terror? Who is they if not the Republican party and its sympathizers that are attacking Obama relentlessly?

    The Republican strategy is to simply not cooperate in order not to award Obama political points. One Republican said that it was his party’s duty to ensure that Obama would be a one-term president. It is evident to me that the right’s propaganda machine has done a number on a multitude of hate-spewing, rhetoric-regurgitating types.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s