Ron Paul, a lost cause...

[Voluntary]

Quote by: grandpa I consider him an advocate of "Libertarian Fascism," honestly. His platform takes nationalism to an extreme. He not only emphasizes citizenship but believes that one shouldn't even be a natural born citizen.

Are you taking his stance out of context? His 6 point plan:
Ron Paul 2008 › Issues › Border Security and Immigration Reform

Like Lou Dobbs, he's too simple-minded to realize it's the lack of decent jobs in Mexico that is driving immigration, not some kind of need to "terrorize" Americans.

I agree with you that immigration is driven by economic factors, not the need to terrorize the US. Did Paul say otherwise?

"Libertarian" is a word thrown around merely in debating points these days. Few people understand what it actually means.

I agree with you. It almost parallels classical liberalism which is not the same thing as modern day liberalism.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Voluntary Are you taking his stance out of context?

No.

Grandpa h.

[Voluntary]

The can you provide a source to support your statement, "He not only emphasizes citizenship but believes that one shouldn't even be a natural born citizen?"

[Jaaaman]

Ron Paul was a lost cause from day one of the campaign... revolution my ass.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Jaaaman Ron Paul was a lost cause from day one of the campaign... revolution my ass.

Your opinion is drivel.

[Jaaaman]

Quote by: Voluntary Your opinion is drivel.

Hmmm... ok. Nice comeback.

[Voluntary]

It wasn't a comeback, but a factual statement.

Try supporting your drivel, and then I may respond to it in a more intelligent manner. Why was he a lost cause from day one?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Voluntary The can you provide a source to support your statement, "He not only emphasizes citizenship but believes that one shouldn't even be a natural born citizen?"

Rethinking Birthright Citizenship by Ron Paul

I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined. Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Voluntary It wasn't a comeback, but a factual statement.

Actually, calling something "drivel" is a comeback rather than a compelling argument.

Grandpa h.

[GHook93]

Quote by: grandpa Rethinking Birthright Citizenship by Ron Paul Grandpa h.

Grandpa you are completely ignoring relevent facts.
The birthright clause was to protect the newly freed black slaves. The government didn't want whites to try to deny Blacks citizenship. It was justifiable for that cause. However, it was never the legislative intent, and the legislative history doesn't support, that the birthright clause was to give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. Illegal aliens have exploited this.

Look at the citizenship requirements in Mexico, Japan and other countries, even without the birthright clause we still have very liberal immigration laws.

Ron Paul is 100% right in this issue. Actually he is more right on this issue than any Presidential candidate (if you can really call him that) in the last 100 years!

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 Grandpa you are completely ignoring relevent facts. The birthright clause was to protect the newly freed black slaves.

If by "ignoring relevant facts" you mean upholding basic libertarian princples, I'd agree. Just like the suffering of adult Black slaves in 1840 was not
considered an important issue then, the suffering of 'illegals" is not considered now. That's why we should abolish citizenship and the ideological subservience to the state it entails.

Grandpa h.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: grandpa Actually, calling something "drivel" is a comeback rather than a compelling argument. Grandpa h.

No, it is not. Jaaaman spewed out a useless and empty opinion without supporting it (i.e. drivel). Care to prove otherwise?

[Voluntary]

Quote by: grandpa Rethinking Birthright Citizenship by Ron Paul Grandpa h.

The same document that where Paul stated:

Quote by: Ron Paul Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.

Paul is defining the source of the problem.

Your statement, "He not only emphasizes citizenship but believes that one shouldn't even be a natural born citizen" still goes unsupported. Chalk up your losses and move on. You are obviously wrong in your analysis.

[Chris the Chees]

Paul is defining the source of the problem.

And as typical, in my opinion; utterly wrongly. I would say the causes of immigration are multifaceted, an array of issues from economic, political, social issues in the migrants home country and the promise of a better life in their destination country. While a reasonable pension system and social security do undoubtedly gie the citizens of a country a better standard of living, these humble improvements are largely not given to illegal immigrants, thus they clearly are not an insentive for migration. After all, for an illegal border jumper turning up at the job centre for your dole money is a swift and easy way of getting deported.

Being such an obvious flaw in his argument, I am supprised Paul even made it. But then again, I read a lot of a libertarian explainations for why 'x' is in such a mess and they nearly always seem to have glaring problems the advocate utterly ignores or perhaps hasn't even noticed.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Voluntary The same document that where Paul stated: Paul is defining the source of the problem. Your statement, "He not only emphasizes citizenship but believes that one shouldn't even be a natural born citizen" still goes unsupported.

No it does not. He obviously thinks citizenship by birth is deeply rooted in this problem. In a way it certainly is, but not in his sense.

And Ron Paul does what other rightwing nationalists do -- blame the victims. If you take an honest look at "illegals" in the sluggish economy, they are experiencing the problem even worse than most legal citizens. The reason? Artificial social distinctions are created and maintained by both real and implied coercion -- the kind that Paul emphasizes as positive but which has nothing to do with libertarian ethics. That's why he wants the amendment. So it's not my statement that goes unsupported, but the statement that Ron Paul is a "libertarian." Ultimately, Paul stands brazenly against libertarianism, as anyone who understands the word could concede.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chris the Chees And as typical, in my opinion; utterly wrongly. I would say the causes of immigration are multifaceted, an array of issues from economic, political, social issues in the migrants home country and the promise of a better life in their destination country.

Paul is just another politician, complete with a flip-flop technique.

Grandpa h.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Chris the Chees And as typical, in my opinion; utterly wrongly. I would say the causes of immigration are multifaceted, an array of issues from economic, political, social issues in the migrants home country and the promise of a better life in their destination country.

In theory, you are correct. The United States borders a relatively poor country, Mexico. That is why Mexicans risk their life to cross over the border patrol in the Arizona's Sonoran Dessert. More that 500,000 illegal immigrants were caught last year.

I can dig up many examples of Mexicans living her for years and not learning English. I doubt that they come her for our culture.

While a reasonable pension system and social security do undoubtedly gie the citizens of a country a better standard of living, these humble improvements are largely not given to illegal immigrants, thus they clearly are not an insentive for migration.

Quote by: Ron Paul In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It’s the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.

Here is another example:
"In 2003 in Stockton, California, 70 percent of the 2,300 babies
born in San Joaquin General Hospital’s maternity ward were
anchor babies,and 45percent of Stockton children underage six are
Latino (up from 30 percent in 1993). In 1994, 74,987 anchor
babies in California hospital maternity units cost $215 million and
constituted 36 percent of all Medi-Cal births. Now they account for
substantially more than half."

After all, for an illegal border jumper turning up at the job centre for your dole money is a swift and easy way of getting deported.

"NILC cleverly managed to restore to its constituency of legal and illegal immigrants: $12 billion in Supplemental Security Income, and more than $800millionin food stamps."

Illegals are guaranteed medical care and don't get deported after they have their anchor baby.

Source: http://http://64.233.167.104/search?...ient=firefox-a

Another article that might be of interest:
Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Breaking News for Dallas-Fort Worth | Dallas Morning News

Being such an obvious flaw in his argument, I am supprised Paul even made it. But then again, I read a lot of a libertarian explainations for why 'x' is in such a mess and they nearly always seem to have glaring problems the advocate utterly ignores or perhaps hasn't even noticed.

Where is the flaw? You could point it out rather make a gross overgeneralization.

Quote by: Ron Paul No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.

Does your country allow for illegal immigration, guaranteed health care, and anchor babies?

[Voluntary]

Quote by: grandpa No it does not. He obviously thinks citizenship by birth is deeply rooted in this problem. In a way it certainly is, but not in his sense.

Anchor babies + guaranteed health care + a welfare system + a rich country bordering a poor country = Problem.

Then what is the problem and what is the solution?

And Ron Paul does what other rightwing nationalists do -- blame the victims.

Got evidence. I thought he was laying blame to the welfare system. I do not know we you think it is American duty to pay for Non-American's healthcare. We have the right to be charitable, but no obligatory.

If you take an honest look at "illegals" in the sluggish economy, they are experiencing the problem even worse than most legal citizens.

What problem are you talking about? It is unclear. Can you elucidate?
How are illegal immigrants experiencing the problems associated with illegal immigration?

Artificial social distinctions are created and maintained by both real and implied coercion -- the kind that Paul emphasizes as positive but which has nothing to do with libertarian ethics.

I am having a difficult time understanding you. You need describe how real and implied coercion are creating and maintaining artificial social distinctions. Examples would be helpful.

And then how does this thought link into Paul's emphasis are positive? I assume that you are referring to Positive rights.I am not seeing the connection.

That's why he wants the amendment. So it's not my statement that goes unsupported, but the statement that Ron Paul is a "libertarian." Ultimately, Paul stands brazenly against libertarianism, as anyone who understands the word could concede.

I still don't see your argument how Paul brazenly stands against libertarian based off his stance of illegal immigration.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Voluntary Anchor babies + guaranteed health care + a welfare system + a rich country bordering a poor country = Problem. Then what is the problem and what is the solution?

The existence of countries is the ultimate problem, as libertarians have long understood -- though the nationalist Ron Paul apparently does not. It's completely nonsensical to expect people to "fix their own country" when dealing with an international system. The problem is that it will also be possible
to declare one group as the problem and another as the solution -- and this so-called "national unity" is at the core of fascist ideology. So the solution is to undermine the fascist ideology which underlies national citizenship. Until tendencies toward this end become greater, the problems in all countries will likely grow until civilization collapses under its own weight.

Grandpa h.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: grandpa The existence of countries is the ultimate problem, as libertarians have long understood -- though the nationalist Ron Paul apparently does not.

I think I see were you are coming from. Not all libertarians are anarchists who won't to dispose of national sovereignty. It would be nice as people without borders, but I think it is still ideal

It's completely nonsensical to expect people to "fix their own country" when dealing with an international system. The problem is that it will also be possible to declare one group as the problem and another as the solution -- and this so-called "national unity" is at the core of fascist ideology.

I think we are perceiving this different. Paul is not declaring one group as the problem, but the welfare state. Supporting illegal immigrants who have "the right" to health care comes at the taxpayers expense.

So the solution is to undermine the fascist ideology which underlies national citizenship. Until tendencies toward this end become greater, the problems in all countries will likely grow until civilization collapses under its own weight.

I guess if you hold this view, then every national leader is a fascist. America's has some of the most relaxed immigration laws for a developed country and the only developed country to offer citizenship via anchor babies.

By your logic, if you are going to call Paul a fascist, then all political leaders are fascists.