This will be a purely opinion-based post, but do you guys think, if Ron Paul becomes President, he'll give amnesty to illegal immigrants currently in the United States? Most of his voting record has obviously been pro-borders, and it's debatable whether he did this in order to stay in the Republican Party for "pragmatic" purposes, but, considering this will be his last run for President and he has always announced that he'll no longer be running for Congress, do you think amnesty has a chance?
He's already admitted that he'll pardon all non-violent drug offenders, so I see a pretty big chance in him meeting many libertarian objectives with nothing to lose, so to speak.
What makes you think he'd grant amnesty?
He's made it clear the deportation is not the way to go...
What some people call "amnesty" would probably be granting green cards en masse and lowering naturalization standards (the tests and things).
I think Paul would prevent their access to welfare systems through granting VISA's. Either get a visa and have a legal job, or don't have a job and try to leech off of the welfare system.
Eating Propaganda
What do you mean i don't care how your day was?!
If he's successful at becoming President, that's going to be the top position in terms of power that he'll ever have. I think he's beem slowly hinting more and more at his promotion of anarcho-capitalism, first through the interview with Pete Eyre claiming that individuals self-governing is the best possible end result of any rational society and then through the interview with Adam Kokesh stating that he's a voluntaryist at heart. If he doesn't plan on running again for Congress, he has no reason to vote against his own will in order to stay with the party. I have confidence that he'll do the right thing for the economy and freedom in general when he has that kind of influence over legislation.
The welfare system is the only partially rational - if you want to call it that - argument against illegal immigration in terms of the economy. It's easy to make the claim that illegal immigrants leech off of the welfare system because that's something you can measure whereas the unseen effects can't be measured. Of course we all realize that it doesn't even matter because the so-called 'American jobs' don't belong to anyone, but you know what I mean. It's extremely difficult to convince people otherwise when it comes to borders, so I hope the power he has will benefit society in the long run.
SouthernLiberty:I have confidence that he'll do the right thing for the economy and freedom in general when he has that kind of influence over legislation.
You think amnesty for illegal immigrants is "the right thing for the economy"?
How would an increase in the supply of workers be bad for the economy? Unless of course you're arguing that, if amnesty is given, the then-legal workers will be forced to abide by minimum wage standards.
SouthernLiberty:How would an increase in the supply of workers be bad for the economy?
If a "supply of workers" is all they would be, you might have a point.
I think the immigrants, regardless of citizenship status, bring in more good than bad. They don't take much from the Federal government ($29B is the most anyone can come up with and they pay taxes on almost half of that) as a whole compared to the citizens and they give labor at true fair market value.
As the economy has gotten worse, they've become more scarce at least in Virginia anyway compared to how many I saw in, say, 07. I don't favor anyone getting welfare, but they help more than they hurt even if they do take 25B in welfare, and as Lew Rockwell noted, they could keep labor unions in check.
However, Dr. Paul made it clear in Liberty Defined that he doesn't favor amnesty and that he's against birthright citizenship. I'm sure that he didn't write the 2003 editorial on lewrockwell.com (where he was talking about citizenship requiring loyalty to your country) to get votes from the Republican Party. He endorsed Chuck Baldwin last time and he endorsed Pat Buchanan in 92, so I really don't think anyone who endorsed to of the biggest immigration hawks could be for amnesty.. There's a difference between being against amnesty and supporting birthright citizenship.
No2statism:I think the immigrants, regardless of citizenship status, bring in more good than bad. They don't take much from the Federal government ($29B is the most anyone can come up with and they pay taxes on almost half of that) as a whole compared to the citizens and they give labor at true fair market value.
So, what you're saying is that if all the illegal immigrants were made into full American citizens overnight, that $29B handout number wouldn't change. Mmmm. K.
The amount of taxes they'd pay would increase proportionally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38
"I have campaigned against amnesty, I don't think it's right."-Ron Paul
"I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgments."-Albert Einstein
No2statism:The amount of taxes they'd pay would increase proportionally.
According to the CBO, those who made less than $44,300 in 2001 -- 60% of the country -- paid a paltry 3.3% of all income taxes. By 2005, almost all of them were excused from paying any income tax. In 2001, the bottom 60% paid 16.3% of all taxes; by 2005 their share was down to 14.3%.
Let's say that again: 60% of the country made 26% of the income and paid 0.6% of the income tax. And that was 6 years ago. For the bottom 40%, the redistribution deal is even better. In 2001, these 43 million Americans, who earn less than $30,500, made 13.5% of the nation's income but paid no income tax. Instead, they received checks from their taxpaying neighbors worth $16.3 billion. By 2005, those checks totaled $33.3 billion. [More than double]. And they've gotten bigger:
And you're going to try to tell me that turning 13 million+ illegal aliens into full-blown American citizens overnight is not going to make a single bit of difference. Sir, you are delusional.
I dont' see how they would pay more taxes - at least at a federal level - most would be in the 50+% of all american'ts that pay no federal income tax. and they are already paying local and state sales tax ( that would not change). what would change is their "rights" to a bunch of more handouts.
I believe as long as the welfare system is so generous and easy to get in this country that amnesty and open borders is a big net negative. never mind the massive voting block of new marksist demanding their goodies.. open borders really only makes sense in a free society - not in a society where politicians manipulate the sheeple and use them as fodder so easily... this is another area that libertarians are too utopian i think
Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.
We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!
Kaiser:"I have campaigned against amnesty, I don't think it's right."-Ron Paul
You were saying, SouthernLiberty?
also I am tired of the media a holes calling everyone who is not for 100% amnesty " anti - immigration".. most people are pro immigration - just with some type of means testing or limits etc.etc..
let the revolution begin - me and my hunting cats are ready
Why would someone that is already able to cross the border at will and work for taxless wages want a green card?
Personally I don't think that the "if we let more people in it would burden the welfare system" argument holds. We could cut the welfare state if we banned the poor from reproducing, and I'm sure there's any number of proposals out there that could theoretically cut welfare costs by infringing upon freedom.
AF:Personally I don't think that the "if we let more people in it would burden the welfare system" argument holds. We could cut the welfare state if we banned the poor from reproducing, and I'm sure there's any number of proposals out there that could theoretically cut welfare costs by infringing upon freedom.
I don't think the "if you throw a man off a bridge he would fall down to the Earth" argument holds. An angel could appear and carry him away. And I'm sure there's any number of magical spells God could cast that could theoretically prevent the man from being subject to the laws of gravity.
John James, you make a good point about if they were to become citizens (they could become members of unions, they would be entitled to minimum wage, etc), but it's good to have people here illegally because it keeps labor costs at market prices.
No2statism:it's good to have people here illegally because it keeps labor costs at market prices.
Then what the heck was all this about?
Here is exactly what I said: "Most of his voting record has obviously been pro-borders, and it's debatable whether he did this in order to stay in the Republican Party for "pragmatic" purposes, but, considering this will be his last run for President and he has always announced that he'll no longer be running for Congress, do you think amnesty has a chance?"
Meaning I said exactly what the video stated. My question deals with whether people on here believe his stance was true to his real beliefs or simply to stay in the Republican base. No Republican nowadays who wants to be elected is going to come out and say that he believes in amnesty. Lately he's been much more opinion regarding his beliefs - as I said, claiming that he is a voluntaryist at heart (and here) - especially when it comes to borders and drug policy.
Because it's quite possible that being sent back to Mexico, to them, is a much worse punishment.
SouthernLiberty:Meaning I said exactly what the video stated
Oh really. You were saying Ron Paul has campaigned against amnesty and doesn't think it's right, and therefore probably would not support a bill that has that provision. That's funny, because I could have thought you were saying Ron Paul likely would support amnesty.