Ron Paul on Immigration - John Stossel Article from Townhall.com

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Ron Paul on Immigration (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/2008/01/02/ron_paul_on_immigration?page=full&comments=true)

I'd heard that that presidential candidate Ron Paul was "hard line" on immigration and "to the right" of the Republican field. But that's not exactly what he revealed during my interview with him. Here's Part 4 of my edited interview.

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?



Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

[jayson]

He is right... The fence won't stop the problem. You can build it 100 feet high and they will still find ways through it, if the incentive is good enough.

That is why Ron Paul supports ending the reasons they come here in the first place: end welfare for illegals, end free education for illegals, end illegal birthright citizenship, end healthcare for illegals, etc., etc.

Building a fence only appeases the voters in this country... it doesn't actually solve the problem. Remember, the 700-mile fence was just that... 700 miles. The illegals and border coyotes will just move their base of operations to the unprotected portion.

We need to remove the incentives before we can even begin to think about securing the border with physical means (of which I am also a proponent).

[THEBIRD]

Nice try.

He has said time and again that he would put armed troops on our border with actual weapons.....not like the NG that never had any.

An armored division would be a heck of a lot more effective then any fence.

[Rhino]

Not if they don't have orders to shoot. And how does he propose getting around the fact that it's illegal to use federal troops on the border? Not that I would be opposed to it, mind you.

[THEBIRD]

My dear Rhino,

Surely your not talking about Posse Comitatus. That prevents the military from performing law enforcement duties on US soil.

Protecting our nations borders is not a law enforcement action...or it shouldn't be. We have made it into one. Protecting our borders should fall to those who have sworn an oath to protect our nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.....our military.

Putting combat brigades on our vast southern border is a different story compared to putting combat soldiers in "small town" USA.



We are being invaded. Correct? It is the job of the US Military to repel any invasion.....with bullets...and lots of them.

[Rhino]

I'm not arguing whether it should or shouldn't be considered a law enforcement action. Current law says that it is, whether we agree with it or not. How does RP propose getting around that?

[The_Elucidator]

Not if they don't have orders to shoot. And how does he propose getting around the fact that it's illegal to use federal troops on the border? Not that I would be opposed to it, mind you.

If Paul said next week that we need a border fence these same people would once again change their mind also! I have never seen such a mindless bunch of dupes in my entire life. Yess boss, no boss, how high boss, what next boss??? :rolleyes:

[THEBIRD]

Where is the law does it say protecting the border is a law enforcement action. Both a E-1 private and border patrol agent are federal employees and under federal control ultimately. My paycheck in the military came directly from the US Treasury.

If we actually had a president who used the bully pulpit and didn't run and hide when asked not to use it, then we could rally the American people who want our border secured.

If there is any such law that says the military can't stand on the border to protect this country, then the will of the mass of angry citizens will quickly convince their elected reps to change said law.

Again, what is happening is an invasion, Correct? It is the job of the US Military to repel any invasion under the constitution.

[Rhino]

Where is the law does it say protecting the border is a law enforcement action.In the statute and in case law.

Both a E-1 private and border patrol agent are federal employees and under federal control ultimately. My paycheck in the military came directly from the US Treasury.It isn't governed just by the status of the employee. It is governed by their use. A private is in the military and a BPA is not, so the law applies to one but not the other. Yet again, whether we agree with it or not, that is the legal interpretation. Arguing it all day long will not change that.

If we actually had a president who used the bully pulpit and didn't run and hide when asked not to use it, then we could rally the American people who want our border secured.

If there is any such law that says the military can't stand on the border to protect this country, then the will of the mass of angry citizens will quickly convince their elected reps to change said law.Uh huh. And I got a bridge in San Fran to sell you. The citizens already overwhelmingly want the border enforced, but there is no such push. By the way, the law does not need to be changed. It allows such use if Congress says so. But Congress is not pushing for it, because so many people fear the use of military in law emforcement, despite their desire for border enforcement. I don't see how RP can overcome that. It would take one helluva lot more than a bully pulpit.

Again, what is happening is an invasion, Correct? It is the job of the US Military to repel any invasion under the constitution.And our opinions don't change the legal definition.

[The_Elucidator]

I don't see how RP can overcome that. It would take one helluva lot more than a bully pulpit.




That has been my point of contention with Paul and his supporters. He has been making tons of promises that he absolutely can't keep unless he plans to circumvent the very thing that he says he defends.

As an example (because you know how words get parsed round here); A candidate could claim that he/she would definitely drill in ANWR to help ease our dependency on foreign oil. No way it happens because of the makeup of the House and Senate.

[THEBIRD]

The citizens already overwhelmingly want the border enforced, but there is no such push.

Because our current president won't allow any talk of it. Kinda hard when the leader of the country won't do the people's bidding.

[Rhino]

Because our current president won't allow any talk of it.Since when?

[Rhino]

In October 2006, Bush signed into law the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Quietly slipped into the law at the last minute, at the request of the Bush administration, were sections changing important legal principles, dating back 200 years, which limit the U.S. government's ability to use the military to intervene in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial law--under which the military takes direct control over civilian administration.

Sec. 1042 of the Act, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," effectively overturns what is known as posse comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act is a law, passed in 1878, that prohibits the use of the regular military within the U.S. borders....

...So the changes to posse comitatus signed into law by Bush are extremely significant and ominous. Bush has modified the main exemptions to posse comitatus that up to now have been primarily defined by the Insurrection Act of 1807. Previously the president could call out the army in the United States only in cases of insurrection or conditions where "rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." Under the new law the president can use the military in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or "other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."...http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070819095949AAbKMQ3

It seems you have your facts wrong.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

If there is any such law that says the military can't stand on the border to protect this country, then the will of the mass of angry citizens will quickly convince their elected reps to change said law.

Again, what is happening is an invasion, Correct? It is the job of the US Military to repel any invasion under the constitution.
I had a discussion about this long ago. To my recollection there is something in the law which prevents the military from being mobilized for this (or peforming 'police actions'). I don't remember what exactly, only that it's intended to protect us from our own military (again, if I remember correctly), basically preventing a Hillary Clinton from marching the military over The Rubicon per se. (Perhaps someone else could correct me or clarify.)

I couldn't agree with you more however, that being this is now a national crisis (an article I read some time back stated of the top 10 rising hispanic populations, the majority were Southern states, with Atlanta and Georgia being #1 for city and state respectively. California, with the highest hispanic population in the nation, didn't even make the top 10 for fastest growing.), one would think the military could be utilized to remedy the situation.

I've heard talk of the military being ill-equipped for the job. Some state (save for the MP) they're not trained to be police, they're trained to kill people and blow things up, hence to use them for such would be inviting brutality and excess force. Personally, I consider such to be sophistry, and feel that both brutality and excessive force might very well be in order at this point (they cerainly have no aversion to using either on us as evidenced by the massive crime waves hispanic gangs are perpetrating on our streets nationwide). Regardless I don't worry about the decisions our soldiers and military leaders do and/or would make in such a situation (because unlike the left I actually trust their ability and their judgement. Politicians on the other hand are a different story.).

As for a fence not working, that's frankly hogwash. A fence, or any other reasonable approach will work, if we make it work. The only reason at all we are failing at keeping people from entering this nation illegally is because we've yet to sincerely try to keep them out. I remember reading about how there were what amounted to a handful of immigration agents (no more than a few hundred or thousand) charged with the task of locating, investigating, and removing as many as 20 million people.

Whether it be a fence or bodies on the border it could be resolved virtually overnight if a genuine attempt was made. We do have the money, we do have the manpower, and we do have the technology. If we have the manpower, and can afford to feed and house thousands of troops (a number which came out to about 18.5 men per mile on the Mexican border), halfway around the world on the border of South Korea, we can certainly afford to do the same in our own backyard (and have infinately more justification and obligation to do so. We're not constitutionally obligated to preserve South Korea's sovereignty.).

Every politician blubbering on about how difficult it is, about how it cannot be done, is a traitor who's literally selling his/her country's sovereignty for Mexican votes. Put snipers with orders to shoot on sight roaming the border today, and after a few illegal caravans run back home screaming about seeing their coyote's head explode right in front of them, illegal immigration will come to a virtual halt by the end of next week.

[The_Elucidator]

Nice post as usual CH!!

But after further review; Ron Paul really doesn't want to use troops as his voting record indicates and has been misrepresented by his lying supporters.

[THEBIRD]

Personally, I consider such to be sophistry, and feel that both brutality and excessive force might very well be in order at this point (they cerainly have no aversion to using either on us as evidenced by the massive crime waves hispanic gangs are perpetrating on our streets nationwide). Regardless I don't worry about the decisions our soldiers and military leaders do and/or would make in such a situation (because unlike the left I actually trust their ability and their judgement.


:claps::claps::claps::claps::claps:

Nice post as usual CH!!

But after further review; Ron Paul really doesn't want to use troops as his voting record indicates and has been misrepresented by his lying supporters.


BS!! He doesn't vote for pork....that is what those bills were loaded with. Same with a few pro-life bills he voted against as well. See my post in the thread. Poison pills in a bill are a bitch and deserve to be voted down.

[THEBIRD]

Put snipers with orders to shoot on sight roaming the border today, and after a few illegal caravans run back home screaming about seeing their coyote's head explode right in front of them, illegal immigration will come to a virtual halt by the end of next week.


Paul has said he would do just that....he wasn't quite as graphic as you were but nonetheless.

[Rhino]

I had a discussion about this long ago. To my recollection there is something in the law which prevents the military from being mobilized for this (or peforming 'police actions'). I don't remember what exactly, only that it's intended to protect us from our own military (again, if I remember correctly), basically preventing a Hillary Clinton from marching the military over The Rubicon per se. (Perhaps someone else could correct me or clarify.)That's what we were speaking of, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which has been slightly modified a couple of times since initial passage. In it's original form, it would not have prevented what Bird suggests, but the modifications and case law over the years has changed that. However, despite the liberal protestations to the contrary, the change made in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 actually takes it back closer to the original form, not further. But that still doesn't mean it would be legal to use the military for border enforcement.

[Rhino]

Paul has said he would do just that....He said he'd put snipers on the border with orders to shoot on sight? I haven't heard that. But again, just saying he'd do it doesn't mean it could happen.

[THEBIRD]

He said he'd put snipers on the border with orders to shoot on sight? I haven't heard that. But again, just saying he'd do it doesn't mean it could happen.

No but an armored division was mentioned in passing. :thumb:
Being an infantry soldier in the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Armored divsion, we had snipers in our mechanized infantry unit.

We sure as hell didn't carry our weapons unloaded. :D

[jayson]

As an example (because you know how words get parsed round here); A candidate could claim that he/she would definitely drill in ANWR to help ease our dependency on foreign oil. No way it happens because of the makeup of the House and Senate.

Ron actually had a great speech on that as well. He said himself that one man cannot do many of the things he wants done. We have to have a consensus, the people must want it (and by the looks of it, they overwhelmingly do!), and the House/Senate must pass it. One man cannot rebuild Rome in a day.

[The_Elucidator]

Ron actually had a great speech on that as well. He said himself that one man cannot do many of the things he wants done. We have to have a consensus, the people must want it (and by the looks of it, they overwhelmingly do!), and the House/Senate must pass it. One man cannot rebuild Rome in a day.

Yet he still goes around promising that HE can...

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m212/omahabob/factaid2.jpg

[Rhino]

...the people must want it (and by the looks of it, they overwhelmingly do!), and the House/Senate must pass it.I'm not sure we're on the same page. Are you saying the people overwhelmingly want the military to enforce the border, and with deadly force? I haven't seen anything to indicate that.

[jayson]

I'm not sure we're on the same page. Are you saying the people overwhelmingly want the military to enforce the border, and with deadly force? I haven't seen anything to indicate that.

That comment was directed at Ron Paul's platform in general. For example, abolishing the IRS. It can't be done by he himself, the American people must approve (I don't think this is an issue) and the House/Senate must pass it. Needless to say, on other issues it might not be as readily accepted by the people or Congress and therefore might not be possible.

I'm not sure why I threw the "overwhelmingly" comment in there, though... I just woke up when I wrote that so give me a break on this one. :biggrin:

Back to the topic though... even if Ron Paul only accomplished 1/50th of what he wants to do, I will consider that a victory for the American people... Not only are we getting immediate results, but it would plant these conservative seeds in the younger generation's minds. As I have said before, it will take whole generations to undo the damage that has been done to our country.

[Rhino]

Depends on what the 1/50th is, and what else he does, that he wants to do, that is not a victory for the American people. I've always said he has some very good points. He just also has a few very bad ones that make him unviable as a president, IMO.