The Ron Paul immigration restriction scam
For weeks Ron Paul supporters have been writing to me several times a day, challenging me on behalf of their man, demanding that I explain why I don’t support Paul, since Paul is
so good on immigration (he says he opposes amnesty), and implying that there is something wrong with me, something deeply contradictory and hypocritical about me, for not doing so. The assumption underlying all pro-Paul communications is that Ron Paul is this great and uniquely and self-evidently worthy figure, but that most people remain stubbornly and perversely blind to his greatness. So his supporters keep coming back at you: “
Why, why, why don’t you support Ron Paul?” Compared to Ron Paul supporters, mosquitoes are song birds.
But consider this, from ABC News, December 12, 2007:
Paul has a tough stance on immigration, but that doesn’t mean he wants to seal off this country from the outside world. He said he’s not opposed to immigration at all, just illegal immigration, and that we should let in more immigrants legally. “I think we could be much more generous with our immigration,” he told me. But, he added, “we don’t need illegal immigration. We don’t need to reward people who get in front of the line.” [Italics added.]
Now combine that with Paul’s shocking comment to Peter Brimelow, in an interview posted last year at Vdare, that the
only limitation he would place on the number of immigrants admitted into this country is economic. If the immigrants can fit into our economy, we should let them come. This is essentially identical to President Bush’s position on the 2006 version of his immigration bill, that anyone in the world who can undersell an American for a job should be allowed to come to America. Bush’s position, as I said at the time, meant literally open borders. And Paul’s position is the same as Bush’s. Meaning that Paul is an
open borders man. Which, by the way, is exactly what you would expect of a libertarian. Yet Paul’s supporters, claiming to be immigration restrictionists, keep telling me that I,
in the name of immigration restriction, should be supporting him.
What is it with these people? Are they crazy? Are they a cult?
- end of initial entry -
A reader writes:
“Compared to Ron Paul supporters, mosquitoes are song birds.”
That’s one of the greatest lines I’ve ever read, on anything.
Totally your invention? Or were you standing on the shoulders of giants?
LA replies:
My invention.
Coming out of their CEASELESS TORTURE of me for weeks and weeks.
:-)
James N. writes:
Are Paulistinians a cult?
In a word, yes. They are a very familiar form of political movement, similar to innumerable Leftist “movements” and subject to eternal fissiparous tendencies.
They start with a set of principles derived from reason, or from theory. They identify imperfections in the world as it is (and boy are there lots of them).
They then reach the false conclusion that the world’s imperfections would dissolve IF ONLY their principles could be applied under all circumstances, across the board. It does not occur to them that there are organic reasons that their principles have never evolved into governance, anywhere or at any time.
Normal people derive the appropriate conclusions when their principles engage the real world. Cultists don’t.
Terry Morris writes:
You wrote:
” … that anyone in the world who can undersell an American for a job should be allowed to come to America.”
You’re talking about JOBS AMERICANS DON’T WANT, dummy. You musta missed that memo though it’s been sent out innumerable times. ;-)
Ron Paul may not be a “pure” libertarian, but I’ve dug through a bunch of his speeches and writings and I don’t believe you can find a single one (I certainly haven’t found one yet) where his libertarian leanings are not the central focus in his message. I personally have serious issues with libertarianism, specifically the ideology’s anarchist undertones, which emanates from a free-flowing fountain of deep hatred of government, any kind of government.
Libertarians make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government of laws founded on free elections, to borrow a phrase from Noah Webster which he was applying, when he wrote that, to immigrants, by the way.
And this, in my opinion, is why libertarians like Ron Paul are fanatical about keeping our borders open. Immigrants are people they agree with ideologically. Why? Because immigrants of all shapes and sizes are more or less naturally inclined to distrust government given that they migrate here from countries where arbitrary government is the ruling order. Libertarians are not at all concerned with preserving our distinctive American culture, what they’re concerned with most is to push their libertarian points, and since they basically get nowhere in their mission with rooted Americans, they have to push their points with others who also understand all forms of government as arbitrary and evil, i.e., the immigrant communities.
Ron Paul can’t be a true immigration restrictionist and a libertarian at the same time. And Ron Paul is a true committed, dyed-in-the-wool libertarian, let there be no doubt.
Anarchist libertarianism has gained enough legitimacy in this country without our supporting an anarchist libertarian for president; a president who would seek, above all, to push his points with those who are most inclined to listen to them and agree. As I said, immigrants.
Christopher C. writes:
I guess immigration would be the one, main, area with Ron Paul that I differ with him, and with many of his supporters.
Through Taki’s site, which links to yours, I found Pro Libertate, by Mr. William N. Grigg. I’m also a regular reader, also via Taki’s site, of Justin Raimondo. Recently, both took issue from a libertarian standpoint, AGAINST Mr. Paul’s recent ad regarding immigration policy.
Basically, according to Grigg and Raimondo, it’s a sin for Americans to treat people collectively. And this is an absolute rule. Verboten. Politically, a grave, moral sin. Every time.
So, we can’t exclude or expel aliens unless they are criminals or otherwise individually guilty of some offense against us. So much for a blanket ban on Muslims; so much for limiting immigration from this or that region or even overall; so much for culture, language, numbers, carrying capacity, etc. etc. etc. Basically so much for any argument against immigration arising from general concepts like “the general Welfare.”
Yeah, I was pretty amazed too. Even to have these concerns seems to earn one an allegation, express or implied, of racism.
So there it is, Paul proposes some de minimus immigration restrictions (de minimus politically, such as, gee, maybe enforcing the law; but probably not de minimus in effect), and the libertarian wing of his supporters object. Interesting.
LA replies:
This demonstrates that libertarianism is fundamentally an extreme form of right-liberalism: there are no larger social wholes that matter, such as country and culture, and this applies in particular to our own country and culture; the world consists of individuals whose rights transcend those of any country and culture; and we must admit all people in the world as immigrants unless they have broken the law.
Furthermore, as I’ve shown many times, extreme or consistent right liberalism (natural rights liberalism) leads automatically to left-liberalism (openness liberalism), and thence to national suicide. Following consistent right-liberalism, we define our country solely as a protector of individual rights, thus delegitimizing our country as a larger whole that has any collective rights, and we indiscriminately admit tens of millions of immigrants, purely on the basis of their individual rights. But in reality they don’t come here as the pure individuals that we imagine them to be, they come as members of actual cultures, religions, races, ethnicities, etc. Once they are here, they begin to assert themselves collectively as cultures, while we, having delegitimized ourselves as a country and a culture, are left with no moral basis on which to stop them. The sacred command not to discriminate against individuals morphs into the sacred command not to discriminate against other cultures. All that’s left to us is to be open to and inclusive of the other cultures.
Terry Morris writes:
By the way, herein lies the “scam.”:
Paul has a tough stance on immigration, but that doesn’t mean he wants to seal off this country from the outside world. He said he’s not opposed to immigration at all, just illegal immigration, and that we should let in more immigrants legally. “I think we could be much more generous with our immigration,” he told me. But, he added, “we don’t need illegal immigration. We don’t need to reward people who get in front of the line.”
The MSM portrays Paul’s immigration stance as “tough.” This is how the article or interview (whatever it is you’re citing here) begins. By announcing that Paul has a tough stance on immigration in the opening line, a scam has been perpetrated on the reading public half aware of what’s being said.
I’ll say one nice thing about Ron Paul. I believe he is a principled individual. But that’s as far as I can go with saying anything good about the man’s politics. I think he is sincere in his libertarian beliefs, and that he genuinely believes libertarianism is the best philosophy of government going, bar none. I believe the man is truly wedded to these ideas, and that he’ll stick to them 100 percent whether he becomes president or not. Therefore, in my humble opinion, he wields enough libertarian influence in Congress where he should be perpetually relegated.
Libertarianism has its place. I don’t believe it’s in the White House.
Terry Morris writes:
This is a bit off-topic, but another issue I have with Ron Paul is his apparent belief in his own importance. Back in July I described him as the “self-styled Champion of the Constitution.” This is the way he introduced himself at the GOP debate where he and Rudy had their falling out on the Islam problem. I really don’t see how Ron Paul supporters, who are not conservatives, by and large, could expect conservatives to get behind a man who believes so strongly in his own self-importance that he would announce at a GOP presidential debate that he is THE Champion of the Constitution.
And this is the primary reason, I’ve concluded, that he doesn’t distance himself from these nuts who undermine his chances among conservatives when they say stupid things like “he’ll be our greatest president ever,” and such. I think he actually believes this about himself; that he is truly THE Champion of the Constitution and that he will indeed be our greatest president ever. This belief in his own self-importance is so strong in him that he simply cannot understand and does not want to understand why conservatives are put off by this sort of thing.
Christopher C. writes:
Terry Morris writes:
“This is a bit off-topic, but another issue I have with Ron Paul is his apparent belief in his own importance. Back in July I described him as the “self-styled Champion of the Constitution.”“
Pshaw. Compared to the rest of the field, Republican or Democratic, he is the undisputed Champion of the Constitution. The others hardly ever (never?) even cite it. The Libertarian, Mises, Rothbard analysis makes some points. To that extent, Ron Paul is important. If nothing else, and here I should state my firm intention to vote for him as long as he’s in the race, just look at how CNN and Fox give him short shrift. He’s at least as important at this stage as Ross Perot was at a comparable point in his run. He just beat Mr. 911 in what? two primaries and two caucuses…. Even if his campaign ends tomorrow, he’s at least a mention in a footnote in any comprehensive US modern history 400 level class, e.g., “By 2008 the libertarian Austrian economics faction, sometimes a wing of the Republican Party, sometimes independent, had garnered enough interest and support to propel Texas Congressman (R) Ron Paul to an in-the-running finish in several early primaries as well as several internet fund-raising records.”
LA replies:
“Pshaw”! I haven’t seen anyone use that in decades.
Christopher C. replies:
We are traditionalists. : )
LA replies:
One thing I always wondered. Bernard Shaw used “Pshaw!” in his plays, and it was a deliberate pun on his name. Was “Pshaw” invented by Shaw, or was it already a common expression before he used it?
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 20, 2008 01:53 AM | Send