Category Archives: IMMIGRATION

Ron Paul: ‘No More Student Visas from Terrorist Nations’

Classical Liberalism, Elections 2008, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Ron Paul

The Paul immigration ad stated, “No more student visas from terrorist nations.” For this, these same dubious libertarians hysterically condemned him for being a collectivist—he had blanketed certain nations rather than address on merit each and every individual seeking a visa. There we go again.
A clear thinker remains wedded to reality. Libertarians who pride themselves on levitating forever between their theory as to what the world ought to be like and what it is like are anything but clear thinkers.

Policy by definition addresses the collective, not the individual. Duly, the reality-based libertarian will seek to minimize political overreach, not reach for the political Promised Land. Immigration policy by its very nature targets broad categories of individuals: educated as opposed uneducated; law-abiding versus outlaws; healthy, not unhealthy.

The idea that a presidential candidate with a libertarian sensibility—remember, Paul is running as a Republican, not as a Libertarian—must support only policies that treat each and every immigrating individual on his merits is ludicrous, although it allows the lazy libertarian his theoretical purity.

The notion that by saying to a Saudi national “Sorry, you’ll have to study in Riyadh,” one is violating his individual rights is positively stupid.

Back on terra firma a “highly selective immigration policy” can act as “an effective, non-aggressive tactic against terrorism … the perfect complement to a peaceful foreign policy.”

Update #II: Embrace Your Immigration Ad, Dr. Paul

Elections 2008, Ethics, Homosexuality, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, Journalism, Ron Paul

“You know Rep. Paul has scored a major moral coup when among those chastising him for his stand on illegal immigration is the author of a semi-pornographic tract, complete with a request for funds for the legal defense of an illegal alien. Yes, the prudish, proper Paul is being scolded by a “gentleman” who thinks nothing of exploiting his editorial position on a prominent forum to raise money for a Moroccan, homosexual, burlesque queen, whose résumé includes “exploits in the gay underground of the Arabic world.” …
As a man of the classical liberal, unquestionably American, Old Right, Rep. Paul is perfectly congruous in his defense of a sovereign America bounded by borders. It is his anarchist critics who belong to a different tradition—and who don’t make a lick of sense to sane Americans. …
… Positions that appeal to most normal Americans appall the libertarian foil-hat fringe.”
All that and more in my latest WorldNetDaily column, “Embrace Your Immigration Ad, Dr. Paul.”

Update # I: In reply to Barbara’s comments hereunder about the “hero” of the following “semi-pornographic tract,” linked in my column: Is this individual a worthy recipient of refugee status in the US? That’s the question. There are many foreign-born homosexuals and lesbians who do not enter the sex industry or the adult entertainment industry, but are productive individuals of high moral character. I would suggest they are better candidates for immigration than the subject of this disgusting tract, written by the shameless individual who has called Ron Paul’s illegal immigration ad “disgraceful.”
Note that the author of this “semi-pornographic tract” likens the suffering of the homosexual lad to the Resurrection. How obscene and tasteless.

Update # II (Jan. 15): On the Use of An Editorial Position to Solicit Funds For Unsavory Friends:

What would life be without the need to clarify what was crystal clear in the column, “Embrace Your Immigration Ad, Dr. Paul”?!
Was it not clear that it was not homosexuality per se that I was denouncing, but rather, 1) the quivering pornographic tone of a piece written, not for a gay porn magazine, but for a political, ostensibly respectable (but not really), website? 2) The dishonest depiction of a rather sluttish individual as a victim deserving of refugee status.

As I explained in Update # I:

There are many foreign homosexuals and lesbians (members of my family included), who live under precarious circumstances, yet have not entered the sex industry or the adult entertainment industry, but remain productive individuals of high moral character. I would suggest they are better candidates for immigration to the US than the subject of this disgusting tract.

And lastly, but easily the most unethical, the writer of the “semi-pornographic tract” exploited his editorial position—and by so doing flouted journalistic standards and ethics—to solicit funds from his readers for this individual, evidently a personal friend.
That’s deplorable.

I must conclude that my critics failed to diagnose all this as misconduct because they are themselves, very plainly, unethical.

Analysis: Paul In New Hampshire

Classical Liberalism, Elections 2008, IMMIGRATION, Ron Paul

* DEMEANOR. Rep. Paul seemed disengaged and was the only candidate who didn’t jump in and interject—he didn’t partake, even though the forum was open to it. The others did. Campaigning must be ever so exhausting, even for the spry Dr. Paul. Fatigue may have set in. It’s understandable. But it was also obvious.
* SIMPLIFY. When Giuliani manages to better articulate basic, free market principles vis-à-vis healthcare, for example, you know that Paul’s advisers are faltering. He has not mustered the knack for breaking down complex concept like inflation into simple intellectual building blocks. Sure, none of us knows what it’s like to stand up there in opposition to the statist mainstream and speak about freedom and liberty. But then none of us has decided to take on a run for office, as Paul has. Paul, moreover, has done this before.
* IMMIGRATION. The Paul campaign has come out with an innovative ad on illegal immigration. As I said in “Ron Paul’s Electability”—well before all the contretemps over the ad erupted—Paul is hardcore on illegal immigration. He has the best proposals. Rather than focus on Paul’s excellent, passive, non-aggressive devices to bring about the attrition of illegals, the media, including my own WND, has concentrated on the usual suspects: the loudest, most marginal, licentious, left-libertine crazies currently protesting the Paul ad. The tinfoil folks have discovered Paul is no lefty. Rather, he’s a man of the Old, classical liberal Right. As such, Dr. Paul defends with perfect congruity the sovereign nation-state bounded by borders. I’ll be speaking to this issue in my forthcoming, Friday, WND weekly column.
Suffice it to say that when the topic came up during the NH debate, Paul ought to have touted his own pointers as they appear in the ad. Instead, in a habit he seems to be honing, he responded to a question about immigration with an answer about the national ID card, and…inflation. Bad form. Yes, those of us who’re in the intellectual trenches of the fight for liberty know Dr. Paul makes a good point. But it’s the wrong point to make in a timed debate about specifics.
Again, here he ought to have enumerated the points made in his ad—his commitment to abolish both welfare benefits and birthright citizenship puts a Paul administration in the lead on illegal immigration.
* NARROW THE FOCUS. Paul failed to focus his answers on the questions—especially with respect to healthcare. Cardinal Rule: Don’t reply to a question about healthcare with an answer about inflation. As Paul purported, “You have to deal with the monetary issue to solve the problem of the medical issue.” This is very broadly true, but it doesn’t answer the voter’s need to know what Dr. Paul’s policy prescription is for healthcare. Sadly, the voter believes this too is a government responsibility.
Neither do you reply to the same question with this retort: “The resources are going overseas. We’re fighting a trillion-dollar war, and we shouldn’t be doing it. Those resources should be spent back here at home.” Paul’s reply here implies that government ought to fund healthcare rather than gratuitous warfare. He didn’t mean it, but it sure sounded as if he did.
Contrast that with Giuliani’s
The reality is that, with all of its infirmities and difficulties, we have the best health care system in the world. And it may be because we have a system that still is, if not holy [sic], at least in large part still private. To go in the direction that the Democrats want to go — much more government care, much more government medicine, socialized medicine — is going to mean a deteriorated state of medicine in this country. … I said jokingly in one debate, if we go in the direction of socialized medicine, where will Canadians come for health care?
Giuliani links the private sector with efficient healthcare delivery; government to shortages and inefficiencies.
* BE PRECISE. Bandying about expressions and phrases such as “federal mandates,” or “forced benefits” confuses the voter. Better to use simple words to spell out how the Federal Frankenstein has compelled the states by law to provide free medical care, education, and assorted welfare largesse to illegals. Similarly, don’t throw about the word inflation. Rather, speak of—in context only, not as an antidote to every problem—more paper money in the system causing every unit to depreciate. … A simplified inflation explanation is in “Dubya the Devaluer.”

Updated: Précis: Republicans Debate in New Hampshire

Constitution, Elections 2008, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, Republicans

I haven’t watched the Democratic debate. I have zero interest in that lot. Their policy prescriptions exist on a continuum of socialism. While this is true of most Republicans, there is still something of an argument as to whether it ought to be so— an argument owed mostly to Ron Paul’s injection of laissez faire into the process.
Here are one or two salient points I’ve gleaned from the ABC– and Fox-conducted debates with the Republican contenders:
If you exclude Ron Paul (as Fox Noise did) and set-aside the war (I can’t), then Fred Thompson is the more authentically conservative candidate.
On immigration, Thompson has been the only front-runner to address the deleterious effects of mass illegal immigration on the social fabric of this country. Thompson is also the only contender to have ever uttered a word with respect to the American people’s interests rather than those of the illegal immigrants, whom McCain keep calling “God’s children.” Again: more than the rest, Thompson sounded as though he was vying to lead Americans, not Mexicans.
The white-noise makers of Fox took a page out of ABC’s broadcasting book, and allowed a freer-flowing exchange between the windbags. During this Fox free-for-all, it became abundantly clear that McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani essentially support amnesty; they just obfuscate by calling it something else.
McCain, especially, lies about the Z-Visa, and Huckabee continued to defend the rights of children of illegal immigrants to receive what American kids can’t. Other than Thompson, this lot is untrustworthy on stopping the ongoing illegal influx. Mitt Romney is somewhat incoherent, so I find it hard to make out his positions.
He and Giuliani are extremely repetitive, robotic, rehearsed and unbelievable in their plugs for themselves. I have to say again that Thompson spoke more naturally and organically. His mention of the constitutional scheme along the debate—the delimited and limited powers of the various branches of government, and my favorite, the 10th amendment—meant a lot to me.
It appears that an American president must have a healthcare plan—and a plan for almost everything else. Thus, I’m not clear what is Giuliani’s policy prescription for pacifying the people on this front, but he was best able to articulate free-market principles.
In expressing simple, but fundamental, concepts associated with government as opposed to private-run endeavors, Giuliani bested Paul on health care. (On why Paul didn’t do well, unfortunately, in a follow-up post.)
Later then.

Updated: as our reader points out below in the Comments Section, Thompson did appeal to utilitarian “principles” to justify government taking. If you believe a man owns what he produces, then you can never remove it from him without his permission.
Here is the Constitutional lesson I liked, sealed with the contemptible bit that ought to be bowdlerized (with soap and water):

MR. THOMPSON: “Everyone has kind of a wish list. I think it’s most important, though, that a president of the United States understand that our principles — our first principles are based on the Constitution of the United States, understanding the nature of our government, the checks and the balances, the separation of powers that our founding fathers set up a long time ago. There’s a reason for that. They knew about human nature. They learned from the wisdom of the ages. They set the government up according to that.
They set the powers out in the Constitution of the federal government and they basically said, ‘If the powers aren’t delineated in this document, they don’t exist.’ And then we got the 10th Amendment that says if they’re not delineated, they belong to the people and to the states. That’s fundamental to everything else. [All good up until here, where the bad begins.—IM] And then we grew from that principles, such as a dollar belongs in the pocket of the person that earned it unless the government can make a case that it can spend it better; you don’t spend money that you don’t have; and you certainly don’t spend your grandchildren’s money with debt that they’re not at the table when the decision has been made to spend it.”