At first I just thought he was kind on nutty. I mean, it's not uncommon for people to fail to grasp that gold is as arbitrary a currency as anything else.
The anti Iraq war thing, eh. I can certainly understand that a lot of people feel that way, even if I feel it makes them disloyal to the Republican party.
But his position on immigration, that birthright citizenship should be abolished, strikes me as absurdly jingoistic. I get that it is unfair to consider citizenship for people here illegally when folks are waiting in line to get here legally, but people who try to immigrate legally are subjected to a "guilty until proven innocent" program. It's not as though we have a fair and workable system for allowing people to immigrate, and that's wrong for a number of reasons.
1. We stole this land to begin with.
2. We need labor because of our demographic situation (baby boomers, baby bust, Social Security crisis).
3. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity, whatever that means.
Ron Paul's vision of an isolated America seems to me the opposite of what Lincoln fought to preserve.
Sure he's pro-life, but I have come to see that I am not really a one issue voter. I would probably vote for Paul over Clinton, but that's about it.
[ December 05, 2007, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The anti Iraq war thing, eh. I can certainly understand that a lot of people feel that way, even if I feel it makes them disloyal to the Republican party.
Wow.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah? People typically bawl and fuss over us saying being anti-war makes them un American.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I prefer candidates that are loyal to the American people and to doing the right thing rather than to a political party.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Having a particular stance on any issue solely because you're being loyal to a political party is ridiculous.
I'm not surprised though, seeing as how so many people are so fiercely Republican or Democrat that they forget to think for themselves. Tow the party line, people!
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I find him interesting. I also find, when I hear him talk, that it seems that he's speaking honestly. I may not agree with him on any or most of his positions, but I have the feeling that these are his actual opinions.
In a world where most politicians (on both sides) seem to be trying to take the positions that will get them elected, it's nice to see someone who is just being who he is.
I could, of course, be wrong.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
MORE people? Given that the vast majority of people I know hate him now, I don't get what you're after.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'll bluntly say I think his immigration stance is un-American.
quote:I prefer candidates that are loyal to the American people and to doing the right thing rather than to a political party.
So what is a political party for? We better figure out what it means to be loyal because the Democrats certainly know.
For my part, I care about the war mainly due to family ties of various sorts. But I don't really expect Ron Paul to care about my family.
In the past, I've happily voted for any third party, even where I didn't really agree, just because I hated the two party system.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
But on the subject of Ron Paul... Since I have some friends who kind of like him, I checked out his website. I like some of his policies, but I also was surprised that he suggested that the children of illegal immigrants who are born here shouldn't be U.S. citizens. Sorry, I don't think illegals should be here either, but the time to solve the problem is BEFORE they have children. If you're born here, you're a citizen here. It's too late to do anything about it. (Not that I think there's any reason to let the parents stay simply because the minor children are citizens. Send them all home, and when the minor children reach 18 or find a citizen to live with before they're 18, they can come back free and clear.)
About the gold standard. While I see your point about how basing our money on gold could be considered arbitrary--I don't think basing it on paper (AKA--basing it on nothing) is the same thing as choosing some other material. The point is to base it on something precious which other countries would see value in. Paper is valueless in itself as currency. Gold, silver, and certain other gems and metals have value as currency because of their demand worldwide. At least that's how I see it--paper money should represent harder currency, because it is valueless in and of itself. I couldn't find what Ron Paul says about gold and money, though, so if the debate isn't over whether or not we should go back to a Gold Standard, then what I said is probably pretty irrelevant.
I'm okay with the immigration system being evaluated and revamped as needed. That makes sense.
I'm really tired of the "we stole this land to begin with" argument. Go back far enough and you could probably say that about every country that exists today. I think Spike put it best: "I just can't take all this mamby-pamby boo-hooing about the bloody Indians! You won! Alright? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did and he's not going around saying "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the world is not people making friends - you had better weapons and you massacred them. End of story."
(I realize you're probably referring to the "theft" of the land from Mexico, too, but I think the quote still applies.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Our currency is not based on paper, it is represented by paper. It is based on the full faith and credit of the US gov't, which basically means it will continue to be valuable because the US gov't won't let people in the US stop taking it for certain sorts of transactions. This is a credible backing.
"as needed". There is no need to remove the right to citizenship from people born here. If it is a problem, it is a small one, and generations of perpetual non-citizenship has proven to be a large problem in many other countries around the world.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So how do you all envision us accomplishing "send them all home"?
No, I wasn't think of the land being stolen from Mexico.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
The first time I saw him was when he appeared on Leno, and I thought most of his points were rather foolish. When he used a metaphor of pulling the troops out of Iraq being comparable to stopping surgery on someone who didn't need it then stopping, I couldn't imagine anything other than him just pulling out on a patient while he was still cut open and bleeding.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I actually don't know if we should go back to a gold-backed currency. While I think it was a good idea to begin with and I have my doubts about whether or not we should have ever gone away from that, I think that perhaps that ship has sailed and there may be no practical way to go back. However, what I was saying was just meant to make the point that people who do believe in a gold standard aren't just nuts who don't get it, and shouldn't be dismissed as such.
About sending them all home--well, I think that could be accomplished in several ways--I can think of two. 1. Massive deportations back to their country of origin, and 2. making it pointless to stay in an illegal capacity. Personally, I prefer number 2, where the laws regarding hiring illegal immigrants are enforced and changed, if necessary, to give them some teeth.
On a somewhat related note, I'd also like to see Mexico make some changes to their government and country so that their citizens actually want to stay and are able to stay. That's their domain, though, and it's not up to America to accept their citizens (at least not illegally) to help fix their problems. We have our own poor to take care of.
Regarding a possible labor shortage of legal workers... I'd like to see what happens when businesses can only hire legal workers. If there are then massive vacancies, then is the time to make changes to fix the problem. If that means letting in more legal immigrants to fill those vacancies, then that's fine.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: "as needed". There is no need to remove the right to citizenship from people born here. If it is a problem, it is a small one, and generations of perpetual non-citizenship has proven to be a large problem in many other countries around the world.
Are you responding to me here? I never said that I thought that there's a need to remove or deny citizenship of people born here. I said quite the opposite, in fact. My comment which I ended with "as needed" was about changing the legal immigration system to let more workers in--as needed. This would include all classes of workers--as needed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Short answer: I suspect that a non-trivial number of the people that would hate Ron Paul have not even heard of him. A fair number of people that have heard about him probably do not know enough about him aside from being "that wacky hopeless candidate" to hate him.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I don't understand the republican animosity or the dismissive attitudes towards Ron Paul, but I am glad Pooka asked why don't more people hate him.
First off, hate is a strong word. Why would you hate him? Disagree...sure. Ridicule...to each their own. Hate?...wow.
I like his fiscal policy. Everything is about lowering/abolishing taxes while never voting for an unbalanced budget. That sounds very republican to me, or have we become the party of big government and empty rhetoric? At least Paul has plans he throws into the public discourse.
About the gold standard. RON PAUL DOES NOT WANT TO GO BACK TO THE GOLD STANDARD. He saw problems with the gold standard in the last century. He wants to legalize competition of the dollar by taking taxes off of gold and allowing a competing gold backed currency that gives people the option of saving in Federal Reserve notes backed by confidence in our government or notes backed by gold.
The main point of a commodity backed currency isn't to keep an arbitrary value, it is to stop the government from printing money. The "one-two punch to the American people" that Paul talks about is government overspending on welfare and warfare, and the feds printing money to make up the difference (amount spent not accounted for in borrowing and taxes). He also doesn't like bailouts (by printing more money) to unsuccessful businesses.
quote: It is based on the full faith and credit of the US gov't, which basically means it will continue to be valuable because the US gov't won't let people in the US stop taking it for certain sorts of transactions. This is a credible backing.
This may be credible backing for Americans, but it is not credible for the world. We could have a destruction of a currency.
I agree that his immigration policies would push people under the radar, but at least he isn't for a fence or deportation. He just wants to remove incentives to come here illegally.
ON Iraq and Iran. Paul was right about Iraq. During the republican debates when everyone but Paul refused to take a tactical nuclear strike against Iran off the table, he said,
quote: We shouldn't be looking for the opportunity to attack them (Iran). They are at the present time, according to the IAEA cooperating.
After the IAEA said Iran halted their program 4 years ago, Bush was marching to the war drums and the other candidates were supporting him and getting caught up in fear. Only Ron Paul was looking at the data and presenting reality-- just like he did with Iraq.
Paul is a statesman who is well educated, guided by principals, works for the benefit of the people, and is consistent. He is the true dark horse. On Dec 16th, I will be donating $234.
I also like his support of civil liberties and openess in government.
[ December 05, 2007, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Hate is a strong word. It's just been floating around on the forum with respect to a couple of canditates this week, is all.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Indeed, if it's bothersome here, we should also be criticizing the Hillary thread. In any case, I am of the opinion that most people who dislike him don't know enough about him (or are misinformed). That's not to say they'd love him if they did more research. I can understand how a lot of people would disagree with Paul. I just think people should disagree with actual positions instead of what they think the other person stands for.
At the very least, he seems to me to be the Republican with the most integrity and the cleanest record running right now. I don't agree with him on everything, but what is starting to convince me to vote for him is that I find myself believing that if he tried policy changes that ended up not working, he'd see the mistake and correct it. That's not a kind of trust politicians win from me easily.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is a perfectly credible backing for other people around the world. It isn't like, even if we had a gold-backed currency, we couldn't just decide to refuse an exchange with nationals of a country we didn't like (this happened quite a bit at times by certain countries struggling to maintain sufficient gold reserves).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The only reasons I hate a candidate is if they are duplicitous and scummy.
Ron Paul is honest and straightforward. I could disagree on a billion billion billion principles of his and he still couldn't make me hate him. Sorry!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Agreed.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I changed the title, because I don't literally hate the man, nor do I think anyone else should.
Though in that context, I don't know if I would say I actually hate anybody, since I'm a repressed and neurotic female.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Out of all of the candidates I think I find Kucinich and Paul the most respectable because they actually vote strictly by their beliefs. I also respect Obama though I haven't actually looked at his voting record so my opinion of him is probably heavily influenced by the media.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Kucinich turned me off when he said (I'm paraphrasing) that under his administration there would be no more first strikes. Excuse me? You don't tell your enemies that you're not going to attack them first!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kucinich lost me when he more or less said that he'd never use the military. Now, I'm not a warhawk, but come on, the US doesn't have to be provocative, but in this day and age, it can't afford to take a tool like that out of play.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
You do unless you plan on being the aggressor (a bad thing for any civilized country).
EDIT: That was a response to Omega.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Kucinich lost me when he more or less said that he'd never use the military. Now, I'm not a warhawk, but come on, the US doesn't have to be provocative, but in this day and age, it can't afford to take a tool like that out of play.
He said "War must truly become the last desperate measure of self defense, not the handy policy tool it is now used for."
What sort of situations do you have in mind where you would use the military but you think that Kucinich would not?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Dr. Paul is a constitutionalist. We SHOULD get rid of birthright citizenship. They are called anchor babies. A pregnant woman crosses the border, has the baby, then gets to stay in the US because her baby is an American.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Kucinich lost me when he more or less said that he'd never use the military. Now, I'm not a warhawk, but come on, the US doesn't have to be provocative, but in this day and age, it can't afford to take a tool like that out of play.
He said "War must truly become the last desperate measure of self defense, not the handy policy tool it is now used for."
What sort of situations do you have in mind where you would use the military but you think that Kucinich would not?
It's not always war. There's a hell of a lot that comes in between nothing and war, and from the rhetoric I've heard him use, he wouldn't use it until enemy troops were actually on US soil. Like it or not, a military IS a tool of policy, it just shouldn't be used nearly so cavalierly as it is now.
I don't trust him to keep us safe.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
He was in the military you know. Just because he doesn't want America policing the world, it doesn't mean he wouldn't try to prevent possible attacks.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just don't agree with him. I think he's TOO much of a dove. I'd like the next president to toe the line between the two extremes, and I see Cheney on one side and him on the other.
Something like that, and that doesn't jive with my world philosophy.
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
I am not really sure how so many people like him. Does anyone realize that he would like nothing more than to pull all funding for education, homeland security, and the department of energy? He even said so in the last debate. I suppose I can see people feeling that the department of homeland security and the department of energy are a waste (even though I do not see it at all), but the department of education? Do we really need less money going to our schools here? There are far too many schools in America that are not getting enough funds. Kids are not obtaining the education they need in many areas. How does one want to pull funding for education when that is one place our money should be going?
However, I do give it to his campaign staff for managing to get signs up at every turn around here. He is the only candidate that I ever see being promoted through signs here.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Do we really need less money going to our schools here?
I'm not convinced that this would result in less money for schools.
quote: There are far too many schools in America that are not getting enough funds. Kids are not obtaining the education they need in many areas. How does one want to pull funding for education when that is one place our money should be going?
This would totally derail the topic but not having enough money is really not an issue especially when the school district has a high number of free and reduced rate lunch students (low income, or however they qualify). Those schools qualify for millions and millions of dollars. How the Adminstration of those districts choose to squander their fortune is another matter.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
The Department of Education does much more harm than good. It never should have been a federal concern to begin with and I'm pretty sure that's why Dr. Paul wants it dead.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: Dr. Paul is a constitutionalist. We SHOULD get rid of birthright citizenship. They are called anchor babies. A pregnant woman crosses the border, has the baby, then gets to stay in the US because her baby is an American.
Does anybody know if this is true or not? A mother can stay in a country if her child is a citizen?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
According to wikipedia (accuracy questionable, I know):
quote:The term is used by those advocating immigration reduction to describe the process by which the child would become the "anchor" of a chain by which its family would receive benefits from social programs, and by which the parents themselves eventually would become lawful permanent residents or citizens of the United States.
The term "anchor babies" is also used to refer to children born to women who are legally in the U.S. on temporary visas (for example a visitor’s visa) when the child's birth is specifically intended[citation needed] to obtain citizenship for the child under US law; however, this is more precisely described as birth tourism.
U.S.-born children cannot, however, sponsor their parents for immigration to the United States until reaching adulthood, and illegal immigrant parents do not gain any additional legal rights based solely on the fact that they have had a child born in the U.S.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Elmer's Glue: A constitutionalist? It is the Constitution that gives anyone born here citizenship.
Additionally, I don't see anything wrong with more people being able to stay in the US.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A mother can stay in a country if her child is a citizen?
It is true that the baby born here is a citizen. (And kudos to Paul for recognizing that changing this would require a constitutional amendment. Too many of the people advocating the removal of birthright citizenship refuse to do this.)
A citizen cannot sponsor a relative until the citizen is an adult. Moreover, a removable alien does not become unremovable simply because that person is the parent of a citizen. The existence of a citizen child might be a factor in a hardship determination, but is by no means dispositive. Many people with citizen children are removed each year, though.
I find this generally appalling. While I do see the underlying policy rationale in eliminating the incentive for people to come to the U.S. illegally to give birth, the current solution is forcing a U.S. citizen (the child) to either leave the country or give up his parents. The cost outweighs the benefits.
For those interested in the laws concerning this issue (these are all copyright-free):
8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) limits family sponsorship to "the children, spouses, and parents of a citizen of the United States, except that, in the case of parents, such citizens shall be at least 21 years of age."
8 U.S.C.A. § 1255 forbids adjustment of status from undocumented alien to permanent resident.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
On a personal note: I have a friend from Africa who had a baby here, and the baby of course was a citizen but they were trying very hard to deport the mother ... essentially saying that the mother could go back to Africa without her baby, or force the baby to leave her country in order to stay with her mother. It was an awful situation.
Fortunately there were extenuating (political) circumstances that allowed the mother to stay, but they weren't related to the baby. It seemed very unfair. Or maybe "unfair" isn't the right word, but it seemed ... wrong.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't know that I'm very sympathetic to that sort of situation. It shouldn't be surprise to a parent that a baby's citizenship due to birth place isn't automatically transferable to the parent.
If I were to have my baby in another country with the express purpose of giving my baby dual-citizenship, it would be an act that I would hope would benefit my child in the future, with her being able to choose her nationality when she comes of age. Whether one agrees with that idea or not, it is legal in many countries. I would not, however, try to take advantage of the situation myself to stay in the country.
I also don't see how it is so heartless to give a parent the choice of finding citizens to raise the baby in the new country or of taking the baby home to her home country until the baby is of legal age. The former option is, of course, not an attractive one, but the latter option is not a grievous miscarriage of justice. In fact, I think it is the preferable option.
My point is, it should not be a surprise that those are going to be your options if you come here and have your baby. If you hate it that much, pursue other methods to be legal residency here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My point is, it should not be a surprise that those are going to be your options if you come here and have your baby.
I'm looking at it from the baby's perspective: should we as a government force the baby to either separate from his parents or leave a country of which he is a citizen? The actions of his parents shouldn't affect his rights (in this case, the right of a citizen to remain within the territory of the nation and the right of a child to remain with his parents).
I don't think that abrogating one of those rights is the proper response to the wrongdoing of others.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I have to go AFK for a while for work, but I'll be thinking on this. My gut reaction really is that it's just the way things are, and it's not so bad. The child gets citizenship which he can take advantage of when he is of age, which should be reward enough. Is it really so terrible to grow up in a country that is not the US? And it's not like the child would grow up where he is not a citizen. I would assume that the parents' citizenship would transfer automatically to their children.
He has both rights--his parents just have to choose one of them, at least until he is grown.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think some kind of dual citizenship arrangement should exist, particularly if the child's parents both are citizens of the same country. I had a child overseas and what we were told is that he could be forced to perform military service for Turkey when he grew up, and their suggestion was he stay clear of the country. It's unfortunately no longer an issue, since he is deceased, but looking back I'm absolutely boggled that we did not choke up the money to come back to the U.S. to have him.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Is it really so terrible to grow up in a country that is not the US?
It can be. Poor people in many parts of Mexico have it much worse off than poor people in the U.S.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
IMO there's no real point in childhood citizenship. No point in citizenship until people are of an age with the right to vote.
Technically they may be citizens, but I don't see how that should differentiate a child's rights. The rights of children should be identical whether they have the label "citizen" or not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is it really so terrible to grow up in a country that is not the US?
I don't even reach that question in my analysis (which isn't to say it's wrong to ask the question or use it in your analysis).
My essential problem with it is not the child leaving the U.S. - I fully support the right of parents to take their children to a different country, with certain exceptions such as FGM.
Rather, my problem is that the child is deprived of the right to grow up in his country of birth as a response to the actions of another. There is a connection to a society established during childhood that is qualitatively different than one created during adulthood. Similarly, there is a connection to the full-time caregiver established during childhood that is qualitatively different than that which can be established via long-distance parenting. The child should not be forced to sacrifice one of these goods.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
You do unless you plan on being the aggressor (a bad thing for any civilized country).
But if you tell another nation that you won't strike first, doesn't that give them the freedom to build up their forces until they can inflict a decimating first strike against you? It seems to me you should tell an enemy nation that you have no desire to take over their land, but that if you determine that they're planning an attack on you, you will not rule out stopping them before they can do so.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Dagonee, I know you didn't address that question, but I was responding to what I feel is an underlying premise when some people make the argument that all people should be allowed to stay in the United States (because other countries are so terrible). I don't presume that you are in that group of people, but I do tend to respond as a whole when I write. Easier for my cluttered brain.
Regarding the right of a child to grow up with his parents, that right is often taken away because of the actions of said parents. The parents could be unfit or in jail or unable to care for the child. It's a sad situation, but the child had nothing to do with the circumstances in those instances either, yet he still has to live with the consequences.
I do agree that it's not the greatest situation that a child may be denied the right to either live in his country of birth or be denied living with his parents, but I would be hesitant to change the situation because of what I see as undesirable consequences. I don't want it to be that easy to get around citizenship laws--just have a baby and you can stay. It's a horrible reason to bring a child into the world, and it is not respecting our boundaries.
I suppose I might come across as heartless, but I disagree that is what I am. I am absolutely against people being here who are not legal residents of some sort. I absolutely believe they should be deported and denied the right to work here. However, I am NOT against a change in immigration policies that lets more lower-income workers come into this country as they are needed.
I do not believe in the idea that other countries are so horrible that it is our duty to let in anyone who wants to come here. If some poor people in Mexico have it so much worse than poor people in the US, then why isn't their government/charities/churches/etc. helping them? We're not the protectors of the world, and we're not the saviors of the world, either.
Personally, I think it's horribly unfair that women in France get 6 months to a year of paid maternity leave, while I get 12 weeks unpaid. I do not, however, think that gives me the right to move to France illegally to take advantage of their policies. (Although I don't think I could take advantage of it as a non-citizen, anyway.) If I don't like the family leave policies here, I should work to change them HERE. I understand that it's not practical to expect the poor of Mexico to have significant changes in their country's policies/politics, but they're not the only ones who could affect change there. Maybe there's even something the US could do.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
You do unless you plan on being the aggressor (a bad thing for any civilized country).
But if you tell another nation that you won't strike first, doesn't that give them the freedom to build up their forces until they can inflict a decimating first strike against you? It seems to me you should tell an enemy nation that you have no desire to take over their land, but that if you determine that they're planning an attack on you, you will not rule out stopping them before they can do so.
The first part of your post ignores other deterrents like international treaties and economic sanctions.
In response to the second part, I know it sounds snarky but it's meant seriously - that hasn't worked so well for us in the recent past.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The premise isn't usually that other countries are so terrible, but that people should be allowed to live where they want. As much as that can be facilitated within practical limits, given the weighing of other circumstances, it should be.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Regarding the right of a child to grow up with his parents, that right is often taken away because of the actions of said parents. The parents could be unfit or in jail or unable to care for the child. It's a sad situation, but the child had nothing to do with the circumstances in those instances either, yet he still has to live with the consequences.
True, but usually either when the removal is better for the child (neglect, abuse, etc. - at least as best we can determine it) or the parent has committed a crime worthy of jail. Because removal is not supposed to be a punishment - rather, it is a remedial action for a civil wrong - I think the costs are two high when it requires the choice we're discussing.
quote:I do agree that it's not the greatest situation that a child may be denied the right to either live in his country of birth or be denied living with his parents, but I would be hesitant to change the situation because of what I see as undesirable consequences. I don't want it to be that easy to get around citizenship laws--just have a baby and you can stay. It's a horrible reason to bring a child into the world, and it is not respecting our boundaries.
I think there are other possibilities to correcting the problem, though. Better border security, more realistic guest worker programs, etc. Moreover, the consequence of the current rule is to have citizens with no significant connection to America, something I find more undesirable than allowing a mother and father to raise their child in America.
quote:I suppose I might come across as heartles
I don't think you're heartless at all.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
How about if the constitution were changed that you were a citizen if (you were born here AND one of your parents were born here) OR (one of your parents was a citizen or became one while you were a minor.)
That would eliminate the "generations of non-citizens" problem and reduce the "Anchor Baby" problem.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Just curious, would we allow for children of (legal) resident aliens?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That would eliminate the "generations of non-citizens" problem
It would still create single generations of stateless people.
quote: and reduce the "Anchor Baby" problem.
What is the "Anchor Baby" problem, exactly? People with a so-called "anchor baby" are still removable under the current law. I haven't seen any convincing argument that there are significant numbers of people here illegally who would not be here if they had not had a child while in the U.S.
The 14th Amendment's creation of a right to jus soli citizenship is one of the best things in the Constitution, and was directly aimed at overturning one of the most pernicious acts of our government (the Dred Scott decision). It creates a bright-line rule that keeps the political branches from defining people out of citizenship. It also creates what I think to be an excellent statement against tribalism and racial superiority - concepts that are often intertwined when citizenship is limited by blood.
I'd hate to see something so beautiful removed from our constitution when there isn't even good evidence that this is a huge problem.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Dagonee, I don't follow what you're referring to here:
quote:I think there are other possibilities to correcting the problem, though. Better border security, more realistic guest worker programs, etc. Moreover, the consequence of the current rule is to have citizens with no significant connection to America, something I find more undesirable than allowing a mother and father to raise their child in America.
Would you mind elaborating? I think I'm missing something. What current rule are you talking about?
Also, yes, I do believe that there are better ways to deal with the problem. I've said before (perhaps not on this thread, but on an illegal immigration thread) that denying birthright citizenship is a very bad idea--the time to fix the problem is before people have children here. And if they do, we have to deal with those consequences. Those children are now citizens. I'm just not sure the consequences should be altered for the parents and child either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Would you mind elaborating? I think I'm missing something. What current rule are you talking about?
The current rule forces aliens to either find a U.S. citizen or resident to raise their U.S.-born children or to raise those children in another country. We then have U.S.-citizens raised outside America who presumably have no significant connection to America, a consequence encouraged by the current law.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
The first part of your post ignores other deterrents like international treaties and economic sanctions.
I didn't say a first strike should be the first resort. I said that I didn't see any benefit in taking it off the table.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Ah. Okay. What you said makes perfect sense, I just wasn't getting it. I get it now. I can't say I disagree with it either. Food for thought.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Well, you aren't the only one who doesn't like Ron Paul. Fred Thompson gave a speech in San Fransisco and they had a straw poll afterwards. However, too many Paul supporters showed up and they thought it was unfair--even tho the Paul supporters were from San Fransisco and paid the ticket.
Originally there was a $33 dollar dinner fee and a $5 dollar fee to vote. Lots of Paul supporters paid the $5 fee so they canceled the poll and refunded the money. I guess that is one less poll Paul can win.
Video here. And of course GOP Straw polls left Paul off, even tho he has won more straw polls then anyone else. However, they are not the official GOP. They are a private organization and I find that less disturbing then San Fransisco.
But back to Iran. Paul did say this addressed to Bush at Congress, regarding a possible bombing/war with Iran. This was said before the latest NIE came out.
quote: “It’s a bad idea. There’s no need for it. There’s great danger in doing it. America is against it, and Congress should be…
We don’t need to do this. The threat is overblown. The plan is an hysterical reaction to a problem that does not yet exist.
“Hysteria is never a good basis for foreign policy. Don’t we ever learn? Have we already forgotten Iraq?
“The plan defies common sense. If it’s carried out, the Middle East, and possibly the world, will explode. Oil will soar to over $100 a barrel, and gasoline will be over $5 a gallon.
“Despite what some think, it won’t serve the interests of Israel. Besides-- it’s illegal. It’s unconstitutional. And you have no moral authority to do it. We don’t need it. We don’t want it.
“So, Mr. President, don’t do it. Don’t bomb Iran!
“The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone. In fact, we’ll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?”
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
Is there anyone else who doesn't like Ron Paul? If you could: Why? I'm thinking about these things now, I'd like to know.
Edit: Took out a "so", wasn't doing much for me.
[ December 06, 2007, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: The Flying Dracula Hair ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well I certainly don't think he's wrong with this:
quote:if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone. In fact, we’ll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?”
I think that's exactly the sort of logic the rest of the world has come up with, and we've given them ample proof that it's true.
I'm not entirely convinced of the effects of a bombing on oil prices though. It would depend I suppose on what we bomb and how investors react, but oil going over a $100 a barrel isn't exactly soaring, it's been very nearly there in the last month and we've been fine. Our economy is much more energy resilient than it was in the 80's during our last confrontation with the Middle East, and for that matter, our import partners for oil are a lot more diverse. Not that I think there won't be consequences, but I'm not sure I buy his guesstimation.
Still, it's all the more ample proof that renewables, energy efficiency, and electric cars are national defense necessities.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote: Additionally, I don't see anything wrong with more people being able to stay in the US.
Really? You don't see anything wrong with a bunch of people who are not citizens staying in our country? They are getting free benefits that take away from American citizens.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So...make them citizens and productive members of society who contribute to as well as earn those benefits.
What's with the freeloader mentality?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Elmer's: Yep, no problem to speak of. Especially as, immigrants are routinely found to be a net benefit. They tend to commit fewer crimes and go to the emergency room less often (especially illegal immigrants, in both cases), but the legal ones are paying the same taxes, and many of the illegal ones are too (get a job with fake papers and you'll find yourself paying real taxes). There've even been places where it seems high immigration has increased wages.
IOW, how are you getting this 'free benefits that take away from American citizens' thing? Immigration is a good thing, even in the short term. In the long term, it is even more a good thing. Open immigration policies have helped the US stay on top of the world in a number of areas, including graduate programs, scientific accomplishments (atomic bomb, anyone?), and general productivity.
But those're all part of 'especially'. It fundamentally boils down to, for me: people should be able to live where they want. Given practical limits and considerations, policies that make that more possible are better than policies that make that less possible. I view it as an issue of human rights.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'll reiterate that we already have a social security crisis because we don't have enough taxpayers to support the number of beneficiaries.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, that's another excellent argument for allowing in more immigrants.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The "immigrants get free benefits" thing is easily gotten to. So long as you rely on two things: total tunnel vision, and anecdotes as evidence. The tunnel vision permits you to ignore the plethora of contradictory evidence, and the anecdotes lets you bring in a bunch of stuff that isn't really evidence at all.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
...This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against “violent radicalization.”
... These so-called “suspension” bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as “non-controversial.”
There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for “facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process” in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.
This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of “violent radicalization” -- a claim for which there is no evidence -- there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.
This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.
In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to “contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.” I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.
Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed.
This is where he leaves the rails. The legislation demands no such thing.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I guess that depends on your belief system. There is nothing specific in the bill that I can see that uses heavy handed governmental action against American citizens, but if you have a belief system that governmental programs tend to "artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding," then you could see a direction this bill could take us. The first baby step is always nonthreatening.
I have worked in social services and watched how client charts are written as to secure funding.
He could of emphasized more that the heavy handed government action is a future possibility, tho he did address it here:
quote: What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Between his stance on the TSA ...
quote:You know, the way I see this; if this doesn’t change, I see what has happened to the American people is we have accepted the notion that we should be treated like cattle. “Make us safe, make us secure, put us into barbed wire, feed us, fatten us up”, and then they’ll eat us. And we’re a bunch of cattle if we have to wait and say, “We’ve had it”. I think this whole idea of an opt-out day is just great. We ought to opt-out and make the point, get somebody to watch it and take a camera, it’s time for the American people to stand up, shrug off the shackles of our government and TSA at the airport.
... And his stance on WikiLeaks ...
quote:“In a free society we're supposed to know the truth,” Paul said. “In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it.”
“This whole notion that Assange, who's an Australian, that we want to prosecute him for treason. I mean, aren't they jumping to a wild conclusion?” he added. “This is media, isn't it? I mean, why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?”
I think I'm approaching some sort of tipping point. I think I'm going to have to go right for this small government movement.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Eh, you don't really have to go right for it. Honestly, you can do it while still leaning leftward. I see no reason not to pick and choose positions consistent not with a political party, but with yourself.
And Ron Paul, here, does say some good things. Doesn't mean I agree with him on everything, of course, but that's different than acknowledging someone's good point.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, I never saw this thread in the first place. The OP is remarkably honest about only supporting the Iraq war out of party loyalty.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nicely seized on point there.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think I respect and like Ron Paul as a person although I find many of his positions foolish, although he may have become more moderate recently I wouldn't know, not American so its not my concern.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
When I think about it, it's actually kind of remarkable to me how much less principled rand paul is than his daddy. in contrast, he pretty much sold out for electability on deus unum.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: When I think about it, it's actually kind of remarkable to me how much less principled rand paul is than his daddy. in contrast, he pretty much sold out for electability on deus unum.
QFT
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have a similar impression of the two Pauls, Samprimary and Lisa. I think Ron Paul's got integrity, though I also think many of his ideas are pretty darn terrible, but Rand Paul...well, man, I just get a distinct scumbag vibe off of him.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)