I don’t think it would be too much to call Dr. Paul a gift from God.

I’m rather pleased that the first presidential vote in which I may participate offers me a principled libertarian conservative. I may actually be able to vote for a candidate without feeling dirty, without having to stoop to the ultra-PC ‘peace-candidate’ Kucinich the Commie Elf and the abrasive super-hawk Tom “Nuke Mecca” Tancredo.

We had a pretty good immigration policy prior to 1965, let’s go back to that one.

I can’t believe I am actually hearing some negatives about this add.... mostly coming from the Cato faction.

This shit will play great in Iowa.  It is a big net being cast into the sea of Tancredo people in Iowa.  Lest we forget that Tancredo had more supporters than RP at the Iowa straw poll.

My only problem with it is the ‘terrorist nations’ part.  Justin Raimondo already wrote a good piece on it so I go into any more detail.

Terrorist nations would be?
North Korea.  I don’t think we have any students from there here.
Afghanistan?
Egypt ( Mohammed Atta )
UAE
Saudi Arabia?  ( Most of the 9/11 crew were from there ) ( Most of our Imported oil comes from there Hmmmm how to balance 3200+ murders and 10 MPG in the hummer; one just hates these complex decisions; don’t one?)
Lebanon?
Ireland?  Sinn fein, IRA, Provos
All 666 Pakistani terrorists who swam the Rio Grande with should mounted stingers?
PRC that’s the ticket, we ban Chinese students unless they are from Formosa; that will show those commies we mean business --- they can take the $3 Trillion of our debt and choke on it.  We shan’t be repaying it anyhow because they are godless commies.
Canada?  They have terrorized the USA drug companies long enough with their competitive prices and now they have the temerity to have a dollar that is worth more than the US dollar.
Mexico, 5 to 10 divisions of Mexicans cross that border illegally every year. What’s worse is that they act so damn capitalistically; they like cash, they negotiate pay, they save and remit, and like any intelligent capitalist if someone offers them something for nothing they accept.
There are 192 independent countries, the Vatican City and Taiwan ( of course this number omits Palestine, Greenland, Puerto Rico, Scotland etc. ) Shun them all
But why stop there, we know there are terrorists in New Mexico blowing up building and killing american citizens.  A border fence around New Mexico is probably a good idea.
http://www.krqe.com/Global/story.asp?S=7549088
My neighbours might be a terrorist too so maybe someone will donate some money so I can build a fence and fence them in;
and pass another law to spy on them ...
why is my dog looking at me funny? does he have to go outside ( four times a day he goes outside and sniffs messages from other terror dogs and cats and squirrels) or is he measuring me for his next terrorist food fest?  Oh the fear the fear it burns so bright I think I will have to vote for Hillary she will protect us or maybe Huckabee or John McCain Strong Daddy please Strong DADDY protect us from the brown the black the yellow the jew the moslem the heathen the Ba’Hai the Zoroasters make them all fly down to hell so we don’t have to be afraid and can go back to enjoying the tribulations of the Spears family and The New American Gladiators.

Yes, this is probably Ron Paul’s best ad to date.  I think Paul would do well to send the message that terrorism, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned, is an immigration issue, not a Wilsonian-converting-the-Middle-East-to-democracy issue.

The older, more libertarian Ron Paul wasn’t nearly as tough on immigration, but this has changed for the better:

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=TX14&VIPID=787

Americans for Better Immigration now gives him a Recent Grade of B+.

Paul’s completely right about ending birthright citizenship.  The only category on which he’s potentially weak is legal immigration, which does bother me, but he makes up for it on other fronts.

CK You utterly failed in your attempt to mock a sensible Immigration Policy.

Why not write a brief, and cogent, paragraph criticising Paul’s proposal and describe in what way it violates your ideas or values or liberty.

@John Smith:

“We had a pretty good immigration policy prior to 1965, let’s go back to that one.”

It’s certainly a great place to start.

@Bede:

“I think Paul would do well to send the message that terrorism, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned, is an immigration issue, not a Wilsonian-converting-the-Middle-East-to-democracy issue.”

Absolutely.  And that’s what makes the ad so brilliant.  Many people will actually get that message in 30 seconds, without Paul having even made it explicitly (at least in the ad).

@All:

I’m traveling for the next two weeks and will rarely have access to the internet, so please forgive me if I don’t respond.

A Happy New Year to all!

God bless Ron Paul! Like the war issue, he’s now dropping a bomb on the Republican Primary on immmigration. He’s not got a chance to win, but his participation makes the race worth watching, and he is giving a lot of folks, a reaseon to participation.

His “gold standard” position is pure populist resentment against the FED---ur national bank--whose policies benefit Wall Street bankers, and strip the economic security from the middle class.

I am Not:
Ok
1) The 9/11 and the first WTC bombing were not committed by students on visas.
1a) The other terrorist bombings and shooting in this country have been committed by American citizens born and bred and several generations from their immigrant roots; or done by the US government to its own people.
2) Since the ad did not specify which countries were terrorist countries, either a currently specified list would be nice ( North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Cuba, Syria are the nations the State Department currently lists as sponsors of state terrorism)
3) None of the nations on the current state sponsors of terrorism list have sponsored any terrorism here but Pakistand, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Puerto Rico and Afghanistan have.
4)The 14th amendment giving ollie ollie oxen free citizneship to any offspring of any pregnant foreigner who manages to deliver within the current boundries is dumb, their is a constitutional way to change the wording of section 1 of that amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The problem is that the first sentence is not ambiguous at all.  Dropped here is citizenship here.  The reason there is a 14th amendment is to constitutionalize the Civil Rights act of 1866 which granted all people born here citizenship here.
Notice that Lady liberty sits in a harbour and welcomes folks coming from Europe by boat.  Folks who were not going back to the old country.  Nowdays very few come by boat or plane, our current immigrants walk a mile or swim a few hundred yards and going back home when the cheap labour demand falls is an easy and painless option.  But while they are here most of them work ( off the books for cash as any true libertarian must approve of), save ( without savings there is no investment), and remit to their families in Mexico.
As for the overwhelming of schools and government services, when something of value is offered for a 0 price, the demand will be high.  Immigrants have nothing to do with the price set for those services.  Free beer is free beer; better have enough kegs on hand to service everyone once you start advertizing your free beer.
Ron wants 5 things in that ad:
1) Physically secure the border.  Fences keep others out; they serve marvelously to keep you in too.
2) No Amnesty.  Fine.  What shall be done with them then?  Send them all home, imprison them all, ignore them until they avail themselves of some of the free goodies. They are here, but many are now flowing back to there as the construction jobs dry up.  The new law in Arizona is already motivating them to leave and it doesn’t go into effect until tomorrow.  State solution not Federal.
3) No Welfare to Illegals.  Not a problem, once we are able to determine whether Jose is a third gen US citizen or a barely dry illegal.  Maybe a National Identity card for benefits recipients is necessary.  Maybe a Matricual Consular card from the Mexican embassy or someone on the corner would serve?
4) End birthright citizenship:  Amend the constitution then.
5) No more student visas from terrorist nations.  Refer to the start of this paragraph.  Name the terrorist nations.
192 independent nations in the UN, add Vatican City and Taiwan, add non-independent colonies and territories ( Palestine and Puerto Rico are the two most populace non places ) There is your starting point, about 200 different geographical entities. Pare it down however you wish but tell us WHICH country’s students you wish to forbid entry.  Otherwise Point 5 is just dogwhistle fear mongering and I thought Ron was more cogent and thoughtful than that.
I have no problem with amending the constitution since within itself it contains at least two methods to do so as envisioned by the authors.
I have a lot of problem with a National ID card and the idea of “Your Papers Please” uttered by some DHS or TSA dogsbody or some Border Patrol warrior when I wish to visit somewhere in Canada or Mexico or wherever.
The devil is in the details of implementing this “immigration policy” in a way that does not crush freedom.
Oh and one question, if the 14th is amended will it retroactively remove citizenship?  If the government can retroactively grant immunity for criminal acts can it not also retroactively remove unearned benefits?
Not brief because immigration issues are really not fit for 30 second sound bites; cogent maybe maybe not.

Mass immigration is cultural and physical genocide against the native population (and is meant to be), that is the only thing that really matters.  That there is virtually no public voice willing to state this shows that totalitarian political correctness still holds complete sway in this country.  While terrorism, crime, English, are important (though secondary) subjects, emphasizing them is done out of fear.

As a supporter of Ron Paul, I am sorry that this ad was ever made.  It pumps up the hysteria over terrorism and immigration, conflates the two, proposes (as CK indicates) solutions which are non-starters, and all for what? To get the minuscle Tancredo vote after that sorry excuse for a candidate has dropped out for lack of support?  CK and Justin Raimondo have well critiqued the “terrorist nation” concept, which sounds like something which David “axis of evil” Frum might have come up with.  The mass expulsion of tens of millions of immigrants (illegal and their citizen children) is not going to happen.  The mere attempt to do so would give us our own Iraq and West Bank throughout the southwest and much of the rest of the country.  Those who cry loudest for mass expulsions would turn out to be as much chicken-hawks in that war as the neo-cons have been with respect to Iraq.  Another problem is the conflation of immigration with visiting. People who enter the country on tourist, student, temporary work, or temporary business visas are not normally considered immigrants although many may later become so.  Is it now to be a sign of orthodoxy in politics not only that all immigrants (with trivial exceptions) be kept out of the country, but all visitors as well?  We need the ability to screen immigrants to keep out the bad actors.  For this we need a wall and we need visa control.  I’ve spoken before against permitting tourist agencies in Saudi Arabia to issue US visas and against permitting citizens of EU countries to enter the US with no visa at all.  But keeping virtually all foreigners out of the US is not a solution to terrorism or anything else.  There are other choices besides being a world empire or a hermit kingdom.

1) Paul did not address 911 or WTC in the ad.

2) Quibble. ANY ad can be criticised if the basis for criticism is “well, he did not address this...” instead of responding to what he specifically said - which you didn’t.

# 3 Didn’t really address the question

4)http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/weigh_anchor.htm

Ron wants 5 things in that ad:

1) Physically secure the border. OK. I think I got it. You oppose the idea of a border fence.

2) No Amnesty.  Fine. Good.

3) No Welfare to Illegals. Good

4)responded to already

5) No more student visas from terrorist nations.

I can’t figure out if you are for or against the idea.

Thanks for the response CK. Have a Blessed New Year’s

@ I am Not:
And to you and yours have a profitable and fearless one as well.

In response to #5) It’s not an idea its babble until countries are named. 
There are 5 countries on the US State Department list of State Sponsors of Terror:  Syria, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, North Korea.  Not issuing student visas to countries we already don’t issue student visas too is a wonderful idea.  I do not support it. I think the more people exposed to the USA the more people will LUV us and want to be Just Like US.
Now if you think we should not give ANY visas to any people from Saudi Arabia, Chile, Pakistan and Afghanistan ( to hell with limiting it to students ) I can see the strength in that idea.  Each of those countries has committed or paid to have committed terrorism within the USA.
The Message of Freedom and Liberty is a powerful one.

I have to say, I think the ad is smart (it will play well.) But it turns me off to Dr. Paul. And I agree with everything up to ‘no visas for students from terrorist-supporting nations.’ I don’t like the idea of lumping peaceful productive people in with criminal terrorists because they share a motherland.

Good post, Mr.Richert.

I understand if a pure tactical play, and yet, don’t understand the lack of nuance regarding a 30 sec commercial, from the author of skeptical critique of certain Israeli Art Students.

But I don’t come to praise or bury, I want to point out that the very debate about designated Terrorist Countries, is potentially a bone to the State Department, for them to become relevant again.  When the MEK (designated a terrorist organization) or any of the Albanian/KLA outfits, can set up lobbyist shops in DC, and have Richard Perle speak at their events, perhaps the State Department might be interested in hearing what we have to say.

We need our intellectuals, down this precious stretch, to challenge the Outer Party, and make a case to the Inner Party.

Frankly, I thought that is what Paleos were useful for.  (LOL)

How about an ad Steve Sailer would be proud of: no immigration from countries with an average IQ below that of America.

I can certainly see why Kirt Higdon wants to keep importing Catholics.  The story linked below states that 71 percent of all new Catholics in the US since 1960 are the result of Latino immigration.  That of course doesn’t include immigration from Vietnam or the Philippines or even Eastern Europe. 

In other words, if it weren’t for immigration, the Catholic presence in the USA would not have grown much if at all in the last 47 years. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080103/ap_on_re_us/religion_today_2

Hispanics account for nearly 40 percent of the nation’s 65 million Catholics and 71 percent of new U.S. Catholics since 1960, studies show.

@CK

...so we don’t have to be afraid and can go back to enjoying the tribulations of the Spears family and The New American Gladiators.”

+

“I think the more people exposed to the USA the more people will LUV us and want to be Just Like US.”

=

Problematic.

Here’s how original christianity treated muslim refugees:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGhcgiO5hCs&feature=related

are we really christians anymore?