Monday, January 29, 2007

Wrong on Ron?

Well, it seems that I've stirred up some folks with my comments on Ron Paul (in this post). Here's a few outtakes from the comments:

You may want to check Ron Paul on the Open Borders thing. He's on the anti-immigration side of the issue. He's even considers the possibility of not granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. (Casey Khan)

----------

OOPs

Ron Paul parts with many Libertarians on several issues and Borders are one. Paul has been on the Border issue before it was popular. (Philly)

----------

Oops. I think you need to double-check your sources.

Ron Paul is NOT for open borders. That should have been immediately apparent if you'd done the slightest amount of research. (Mr. Republican)

One thing about the blogosphere, there are plenty of smart folks out there, and they don't hesitate to let you know their opinions.

Of course, I don't qualify myself as a drooling idiot either, so let's look at some of the items I've used to formulate my view about Dr.Ron Paul.

Americans for Better Immigration give Dr. Paul a 79% rating, which is a B by their standards. (They have a more detailed version of his record here.) Now I'll admit that's pretty good, especially if you look at how many are ranked below him. However, on this subject, I'd prefer a higher grade.

In a recent article on lewrockwell.com, he stops somewhat short of an outright call to secure the borders. To his credit, however, he slams such stupidities such as amnesty and birthright citizenship. He also calls for more resources to control our borders. But he doesn't come out and unambiguously call for slamming the door shut, and that's what I'd like to see.

In this article by Reason, Brian Doherty notes that Dr. Paul is "not afraid of aggravating even parts of his libertarian constituency when he thinks it’s the right thing to do, as on immigration (where he’s against amnesty and birthright citizenship, and for increased border control". Further along in the Q & A part of the piece, Dr. Paul states

I believe in national borders and national security. My position is, take away incentives--why are states compelled to give free education and medical care? I don’t endorse easy automatic citizenship for people who break the law. They shouldn’t be able to come reap the benefits of welfare state. I don’t think libertarians can endorse that. I think removing the incentives is very important, but I don’t think you can solve the immigration problem until you deal with the welfare state and the need for labor created by a government that interferes with the market economy. We’re short of labor at the same time lots of people are paid not to work. Take away [illegal immigrants'] incentives. I do believe in a responsibility to protect our borders, rather than worrying about the border between North and South Korea or Iraq and Syria, and I think that’s a reasonable position

Dr. Paul is a fine man. I would vote for him if he was nominated, reservations aside. However, he isn't as strong on the border as I want to hear. I'm looking for "We're going to slam the border shut like the door at Cheyenne Mountain during a drill." Now if you Dr. Paul defenders want to take issue with that, go ahead, but it's my view.

Also, although I didn't raise this in the original post, Mountain Man (When are you going to get your own blog, boy?) brings up an important point--electability. Can Ron Paul be elected to the Presidency?

But that's a topic for an entirely different post. Perhaps another day.

No comments: