Ron Paul is just another “stop immigration” bigot. When it comes to the white hot issue of immigration in this country Ron sides with the nativist wing of the Republican party.
I sometimes follow the incoming links to see how people get here. One such link led to a confused post wherein the author labels me a “neocon”. Curious. Anyway the interesting phrase came a bit later on:
He just doesn’t think we should merely pretend to defend our country by invading another one and then acting as resident sitting ducks for terrorists and their sympathizers – while leaving our own southern border completely unprotected
It was that southern border part that caught my eye, and so I decided to do a bit of research. In Immigration and the Welfare State, Dr Paul writes:
The problem of illegal immigration will not be solved easily, but we can start by recognizing that the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded.
Note: Not “illegal immigration reduced”. “Immigration Reduced”.
He taps into more than a few conservative favorites in The Immigration Question:
The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters’ cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.
Its funny, but between attending schools, working, and taking part in the political process via campaigning, protesting, and advocacy, I’d think Ron might find something that qualifies as participation in “American life”. Could the good doctor qualify that statement?
Perhaps one the more interesting sites on Ron Paul is here. Let’s take a brief look at his voting record on immigration:
- Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
- Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
- Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
- Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
- Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
- Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
- Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
Wow. This guy is for the border fence. But two gems stand out among the rest. He voted to prevent tipping off Mexicans about the vigilante group the Minuteman Project. He voted to report illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.
Let’s look at a quote from his essay again:
How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life?
Ron Paul isn’t talking about illegal immigrants here. He’s talking about immigrants in general. His votes and his rhetoric paint the picture of a politician who is staunchly anti-immigration. I don’t see how this squares with the libertarian image he struggles to sell to anyone beyond the true believers. What is achingly obvious is that Ron Paul is in no way shape or form a liberal candidate. He may be against the corporate state, but that is starting to make a whole lot of sense. After all, his positions on immigration are at odds with the corporate wing of the Republican party’s position and stake.
The modern Republican party has two wings struggling for dominance. One of them is the old school small gummint no taxes no foreigners wing, and the other is the newer corporate power play party. In this sense, Ron Paul is clearly at odds with Bush, Thompson, and the rest of that wing of the Republicans. But he is a Republican through and through, not a libertarian. And his stance on immigration makes this as clear as day.