More Than 17 Minutemen Agree

I usually delete most of my daily barrage of e-mails from the California Coalition for Immigration Reform (unless they make mention of my absolute favorite restrictionist-rocker, Luca Zanna), but the one that came last night struck me as having potential interest:

PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL CONCERNED AMERICANS

Ron Paul asked to meet with a few of us local leaders while he was in Las Vegas yesterday so we drove out and met him at a restaurant where he was receiving the endorsement of March for America, a nationwide anti-illegal immigration group based in Seattle.  He gave a great 40 minute speech and Q&A about how we are going to save our nation and end illegal immigration.  Very inspiring.  The man is brilliant and only cares about the country and the people!

Article in today's Las Vegas paper: [Link]

After the press conference we had a private meeting with him for about 25 minutes to discuss our concerns about illegal immigration.  Here's a summary of our meeting:

Ron Paul is 100% with the American people on ENDING illegal immigration, period. He knows our country is in deep trouble until we secure our borders and end the programs that draw illegals here in the first place.

You can check out his entire immigration platform and plan at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ .  Its as solid as you will find anywhere.

Specifically, he is committed to attacking every aspect of illegal immigration so we can end it once and for all.  He believes our economy is crumbling under the weight of 20 million plus mostly poor illegals.

- He will especially focus on finishing the 854 mile Hunter fence approved by Congress and securing the rest of the border with a logical combination of fencing, technology, and thousands more border agents to guard our borders and ports.

- Ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens one of two ways:  by clarifying the 14th amendment to make it clear that illegals are not covered by it or by new legislation to change it. NO MORE ANCHOR BABIES!!!! [...]

- Ending all social services for illegal aliens.  No more welfare, food stamps, etc.   Take away the financial incentives that make it so enticing for poor illegals to come and stay here.

- NO AMNESTY OF ANY KIND.  They need to gradually all go home and apply to come back legally if they want.  Take away all the incentives and they will self- deport!

- I asked him for clarification on employer enforcement since he came across a little weak on that in a couple interviews.  He is absolutely 100% for enforcement of our current laws against employers hiring illegals and would increase enforcement.  He just wants to make sure the system employers use is solid and will help them determine their employees legal status.

I was sold by his plan, his committment to our nation and constitution, and his passion, and we left believing this man is the only candidate truly running for the PEOPLE.  He is head and shoulders above the rest of the candidates (in our opinions). He has my vote, support, and personal endorsement.

On a side note, we asked him which candidate is most like himself and he said, hands down, Duncan Hunter. [...]

Over 17 Minutemen and anti-illegal immigration groups have recently endorsed Ron Paul for President!   See attached list.  Compare that to the other candidates and its a complete landslide.  Paul has overwhelming support from the Patriot community. 

I had speculated before that Paul might be the restrictionists' last best hope; maybe there's at least mild traction this year in close-the-border presidential politics after all. As an interesting side note, Paul was very pro-immigration in the mid-1980s. 

Comments

Cesar | January 18, 2008, 12:19am | #

*Jumps the fuck off the train*

somebody | January 18, 2008, 12:25am | #

Again, why do people keep using "illegal immigration" and "immigration" interchangeably? Isn't it possible to be pro-immigration, but anti -illegal immigration?

Yogi | January 18, 2008, 12:26am | #

Ron Paul is a better politician than I ever gave him credit for. He can pander with the best of them.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 12:26am | #

somebody,

I think Matt meant Ron Paul was pro-open-borders in the 80s (in line with the stance of the LP). He's also explained why he changed his stance on that issue.

Cesar | January 18, 2008, 12:26am | #

Again, why do people keep using "illegal immigration" and "immigration" interchangeably? Isn't it possible to be pro-immigration, but anti -illegal immigration?

Is it possible to be pro-drug but anti illegal drug?

Franklin Harris | January 18, 2008, 12:27am | #

Ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens one of two ways: by clarifying the 14th amendment to make it clear that illegals are not covered by it or by new legislation to change it. NO MORE ANCHOR BABIES!!!! [...]

Unlike other pro-immigration libertarians, I could actually support this if it were implemented along with a program of liberalizing immigration in just about every other respect. Have a guest-worker program and make it easier for people already to have a path to citizenship if they want it. But I suspect a lot of current illegal immigrants would rather be guest workers with rights than become U.S. citizens, and in that case, I don't think their children should get birthright citizenship.

But, of course, the restrictionists would never go for that plan, anyway.

Jim Walsh | January 18, 2008, 12:27am | #

Snide comment and World Nut Daily link from Lonewacko in three, two, one...

Jim Walsh redux | January 18, 2008, 12:32am | #

BTW: I had to laugh today listening to some lameass journeyman talk host on XM radio who was ranting about the immigration issue, despite the fact that, as he himself admitted, the issue is pretty much dead as compared to a year ago.

Not that that stopped him: "As far as I'm concerned, it even a bigger issue than last year..."

In other words, screw what the listeners wanna talk about...this is what they should care about...

And people wonder why talk radio listenership is on the wane...

Syd | January 18, 2008, 12:33am | #

"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."

Paul supports the constitution except when it suits his political purposes to ignore it.

Fun DaMental | January 18, 2008, 12:36am | #

He's obviously pro-immigration, as he mentions that he will be glad to accept plenty of new foreign nationals as legal immigrants.

etc | January 18, 2008, 12:38am | #

Ron Paul is called weak on "employer enforcement" because he's against the REAL ID card do-not-work list.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 12:39am | #

Syd,

He wants to amend the constitution to end birthright citizenship. As long as you get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree with you, you can ignore any part* of the constitution to your heart's content.

* except equal numbers of Senators for each state.

John B | January 18, 2008, 12:40am | #

Hey Matt, he usually talks about how if our economy was in good shape the illegals would be welcome and so on... maybe a bit of pandering there depending on the audience, but nothing like the 'deport them all' rhetoric of the others.
Syd- I've heard him say that we 'misinterpret' the birthright amendment, but I've not heard him explain how interpret it incorrectly

george mason | January 18, 2008, 12:40am | #

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Foreign nationals in the country with no authorization are not subject to the jurisdiction, they're outlaws. Freed slaves *were* subject to US jurisdiction because, as we all know, slavery was in the original Constitution

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 12:43am | #

Is it possible to be pro-drug but anti illegal drug?

is it possible to be pro-driver but anti-illegal driver? Yes. You can support the ability of people to drive in general, but acknowledge that the state has legitimate interest in controlling who can drive. Likewise with immigration.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 12:46am | #

george mason,

The parents might be outlaws, but that hardly means they're not subject to US jurisdiction -- illegal aliens CAN be prosecuted for violating other laws while they're here.

And a newborn child is definitely not an outlaw.

I suspect the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is meant to exclude people who were born here but have removed themselves from US jurisdiction by settling permanently outside US territory.

Rick H. | January 18, 2008, 12:57am | #

He believes our economy is crumbling under the weight of 20 million plus mostly poor illegals.

Oh, so he's totally delusional. Got it.

Spin it however you want... Motherfucker's just lost my vote.

etc | January 18, 2008, 1:01am | #

keep in mind these are not direct quotes

etc | January 18, 2008, 1:02am | #

But, of course, the restrictionists would never go for that plan, anyway.

.. but Ron Paul likely would, if he were around long enough

Justin Raimondo | January 18, 2008, 1:19am | #

Why don't you go back to "Suck" magazine, Matt? Because you truly do suck. I hope you get the Marty Peretz Award for Backstabbing -- and maybe your fatcat Republican neocon donors will give you an illegal alien live-in slave to play with.

MikeP | January 18, 2008, 1:28am | #

Isn't it possible to be pro-immigration, but anti -illegal immigration?

It's possible. Indeed, if all immigration quotas and visa expirations were eliminated, then I would be pro-immigration but anti-illegal immigration.

But, as of today, the set of people who are anti-illegal immigration and the set of people who do not want to legalize any significant number of new immigrants are so close to equal that it makes sense to simply say anti-immigrant to mean both.

Are you an exception?

thoreau | January 18, 2008, 1:33am | #

As an interesting side note, Paul was very pro-immigration in the mid-1980s.

Are you sure those pro-immigration statements weren't ghost-written by some guy named Luis Roquel?

MikeP | January 18, 2008, 1:40am | #

is it possible to be pro-driver but anti-illegal driver? Yes. You can support the ability of people to drive in general, but acknowledge that the state has legitimate interest in controlling who can drive. Likewise with immigration.

So, if I understand your analogy correctly, restricting who can get driver's licenses by quota based on some arbitrary condition of their birth would be "pro-driver".

Only letting a driver have a license for 2 years, then revoking it for 1 year, then letting them have it again for 2 years, then revoking it for 1 year, then letting them have it for a final 2 years before revoking it forever would be "pro-driver".

Of course, highly skilled employed drivers can have a license for a solid 6 years, during which, if their employer participates in an expensive and arduous process, they can get a green driver's license that finally allows them permanent driving privileges.

How much more "pro-driver" can one be?

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 1:45am | #

MikeP,

No, I do not think driving is the same thing as immigration. It's an analogy, not an equivalence. It's supposed to demonstrate that one can support something without supporting it happening in an uncontrolled fashion (which is what illegal immigration is).

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 1:47am | #

Oh, joy! Maybe tomorrow we can have a Raimondo vs. Dondero cage match.

bachwards | January 18, 2008, 1:54am | #

Why don't you go back to "Suck" magazine, Matt? Because you truly do suck. I hope you get the Marty Peretz Award for Backstabbing -- and maybe your fatcat Republican neocon donors will give you an illegal alien live-in slave to play with.

Thought-provoking, to say the least.

Ventifact | January 18, 2008, 1:55am | #

I can't tell if it's a joke or not, but a bit of syntax parallelism seems to have gone unnoticed. It's not 17 Minutemen agreeing, it's 17 Minutemen groups agreeing, as in 17 Minutemen and anti-illegal immigration groups.

Women of America | January 18, 2008, 1:55am | #

17 Minutemen

17 minutes is pretty good. Those guys are doing the jobs that most American men won't do.

17 times the job that most American men could do, to be precise.

MikeP | January 18, 2008, 1:59am | #

crimethink,

But the state has gone way beyond any legitimate interest in controlling immigration while it does a fair enough job in executing on its legitimate interest in controlling driving. I think the analogy is a bit off the mark. Most illegal immigrants have done nothing wrong but be on the wrong side of a quota. Most illegal drivers -- excepting the illegal immigrants among them -- have done something worse.

But if you are discussing some future time -- or, indeed, past time -- when illegal immigrants actually were illegal for a legitimate reason, then I agree.

MikeP | January 18, 2008, 2:02am | #

By the way, crimethink...

Did you invent the word 'cosmotarian'? Inquiring minds want to know.

wesley | January 18, 2008, 2:21am | #

American should strive to enforce all present law

Food For Thought A LINE IN THE SAND

SENATOR MC CAULS TEXAS WEBSITE

NP | January 18, 2008, 2:39am | #

- He will especially focus on finishing the 854 mile Hunter fence approved by Congress and securing the rest of the border with a logical combination of fencing, technology, and thousands more border agents to guard our borders and ports. [...]

- I asked him for clarification on employer enforcement since he came across a little weak on that in a couple interviews. He is absolutely 100% for enforcement of our current laws against employers hiring illegals and would increase enforcement. He just wants to make sure the system employers use is solid and will help them determine their employees legal status.

Huh? Are you sure about this? John Stossel did an interview with Paul not too long ago where he says he's not for punishing anyone who wants to help illegal immigrants voluntarily, and he goes so far as to call the border fence "offensive." (To be fair, Paul was discussing individual volunteers rather than employers per se, so he might have a different stance on the latter.)

Oh, and Justin Raimondo is just as highly nuanced in his ad hominem wails as in his antiwar fusillades.

Kolohe | January 18, 2008, 2:44am | #

I agree with Cesar. This is, in fact, why I got back on the station platform: when he started pushing this stuff in his NH ads. And this was before I even heard about certain 'periodicals,' - which, as an aside wouldn't have bothered me, except for the fact that the rhetoric and premises (and demagogic fear-mongering) are pretty much exactly the same in both.

Justin Raimondo | January 18, 2008, 3:45am | #

"Nuanced" doesn't work with the Smear Bund.

Oh, and by the way:

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/

freenation2025 | January 18, 2008, 4:17am | #

well well well... the bickering continues apace. You know, I am sick and tired of so-called libertarian "purists" whose orthodoxy is slowly but surely driving people away from our movement.
I guess the eggheads in the libertarian community feel it is necessary to keep the Promethean fire to themselves... as with most problems in life , one must ask this time-tested and true question: is the cure worse than the sickness? In other words...for Christ's sake, let up on RP already!

Ebeneezer Scrooge | January 18, 2008, 4:40am | #

But -- but -- then they wouldn't have anything to do anymore.

Besides, how can you possibly tolerate a heretic? Burn him! Burn him! Burn him!


If anyone here believes that Ron Paul is the only one running for president that has slipped up in the past, they're an idiot. None is pure enough for the job.

And if people around here can look at Ron Paul, compare him to the other trash that's running for office, and then honestly say one of the others is better (McCain? Hillary? etc), then I'll have pretty well lost faith in the whole f'ing "libertarian" movement.

The turn-about on Ron Paul around here has given me severe whip lash.

Ebeneezer Scrooge | January 18, 2008, 4:44am | #

To all the "libertarians" here that have bashed "Randroids" -- go take a really long, hard look in the mirror.

bachwards | January 18, 2008, 4:57am | #

It's amusing to watch the Mises crowd whine about being attacked by Cato and Reason. The paleolibertarians have been arguing that we should cast out the objectivists and Cato people for the past 10 years, engaging in purity pissing contests and slinging mud at anyone who was not sufficiently reverent towards Rothbard, Rockwell, and Hoppe. Now, that the Reason crowd has actually gone on the offensive (rather than simply ignoring what was coming out of Auburn), it is suddenly unfair to criticize fellow libertarians.

Ebeneezer Scrooge | January 18, 2008, 5:02am | #

It's amusing that the whole libertarian "thing" has criticized itself into oblivion.

Ventifact | January 18, 2008, 5:07am | #

It's an interesting question and a particularly good time to reflect on it: is libertarianism fringe because most people don't like it as a philosophy, or because it is not very tenable in practical terms to get people to unite behind it?

Ebeneezer Scrooge | January 18, 2008, 5:08am | #

The libertarian economists have made the case: we cannot afford to have a welfare state and open borders too.

Fact: we have a welfare state.

Fact: most of the people who post here don't give a shit. They want open borders too.

"It's not my fault we've got a welfare state" doesn't change the way it is.

Given the facts, it cannot rationally be argued that on the immigration issue, Ron Paul is any further from The Tree of Truth and Purity than anybody else around here.

But it could be argued that he is being more consistent. He isn't saying we can have our cake and eat it too.

Even though many around would really really like to try.....

Ebeneezer Scrooge | January 18, 2008, 5:09am | #

Ventifact -- probably both.

Franklin Harris | January 18, 2008, 5:39am | #

It's amusing to watch the Mises crowd whine about being attacked by Cato and Reason. The paleolibertarians have been arguing that we should cast out the objectivists and Cato people for the past 10 years,...

Just a matter of history, but this has been going on a lot longer than that (it predates the existence of the Mises Institute), and it's a wee but simplistic to say the Mises folks started it. It goes back at least 25 years to Murray Rothbard and Ed Crane, two of the strongest personalities in the libertarian movement, fighting over the direction of the Libertarian Party. It fact, it's probably too simplistic to say either side "started it," but I wasn't there. And the end result, in any case, has been the decline and increasing irrelevance of the LP. Unfortunately, the whole thing is playing out again, and this time it seems to want to take the whole movement down with it.

Do I think there is a conspiracy to sink Ron Paul? No. Do I think some people would love to take down Lew Rockwell (and possibly use Ron Paul to get to him)? Yes. The newsletter story itself manages to be embarrassing, disturbing, and yet overblown all at the same time. It's been written about and blogged about far too much given that little of that effort has, in journalistic terms, moved the story forward. At the same time, the responses of the Paul campaign and of most of Paul's supporters have been weak, at best.

There is an opportunity for libertarians to reach out to Ron Paul's non-movement supporters and bring them into the fold once the campaign is over, but obviously we'd much rather just piss it away, re-fighting the same old intra-movement battles that we've been fighting for years.

And let me add, I'm as guilty of that shit as the next libertarian. And, sometimes, when the issue is a big one, like the Iraq War, it's an internal fight you have to have. But this has little to do with issues and a lot to do with old grudges.

Frankly, I'm pretty pissed off with everyone right now, and, worse, I'm starting not to care.

MikeP | January 18, 2008, 6:11am | #

The libertarian economists have made the case: we cannot afford to have a welfare state and open borders too.

"The" libertarian economists?

Some libertarian economists have actually made the case that open borders are the best way to destroy the welfare state.

There is no question that a firewall needs to be built between immigration and welfare so that the latter does not become an incentive for the former. But most of that work was done in the 1996 welfare reforms. The most important repair remaining is to make citizen children of immigrants eligible for welfare on their parents' schedule, not on a long-time citizen's schedule.

Welfare for immigrants is simply too trivial an issue and too easy to fix to use as an excuse for abrogating the freedom of movement and labor of tens of millions of individuals and the freedom of association and contract of hundreds of millions of citizens.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 6:45am | #

MikeP,

There are other alternatives to the status quo not requiring open borders. We should absolutely streamline the byzantine visa/green card system currently in place, and probably increase the quotas of people allowed to come in from Mexico. A guest worker program is a good idea too, since it would allow Mexicans to enter the US legally to work during the growing season, then return to Mexico for the rest of the year (which I suspect most of them would rather do if it didn't jeopardize getting back into the US).

A democratic govt has an interest in making sure people coming in from less democratic countries come in at a rate slow enough for assimilation to be possible. For instance, I really wouldn't want to see a US state become 60% Kenyan overnight, and deal with the typical third-world response to losing an election that we're currently seeing in Kenya, would you?

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 6:57am | #

I think I did make up that word on the fly, but I'm sure somebody had done it before me. It's just too tempting not to do!

The only earlier references I can find are this list of expired domain names from July and August, 2007, and a paper with a citation for the "Cosmotarian Science Institute" 1946 publication titled "The Miracle of Milk".

Is there any money in this?

MikeP | January 18, 2008, 6:57am | #

There are other alternatives to the status quo not requiring open borders.

Indeed, I would support any unequivocal or nearly unequivocal step toward freer migration.

But I would say that libertarians who support immigration restrictions should start with the presumption of open borders and then pragmatically back away from that position for whatever reasons they might argue are required.

Starting with the statist, anti-individualist policy of the US today and tweaking it to be more efficient and maybe meet a little more of the demand, thank you very much, is not how libertarians generally approach other issues.

I really wouldn't want to see a US state become 60% Kenyan overnight, and deal with the typical third-world response to losing an election that we're currently seeing in Kenya, would you?

No. I wouldn't. But then, I wouldn't hand them citizenship overnight either.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 7:07am | #

That said, I think Ron Paul's interpretation of the citizenship criteria in the 14th amendment is pretty wacky. I really doubt that Congress or the states were concerned about excessive immigration when they were trying to populate the western states with as many non-Indians as possible. To say that people who illegally cross the border are not subject to US jurisdiction is pretty bizarre, let alone that a newborn child born here is not subject to US jurisdiction. That would mean if an illegal alien murders someone inside US territory, they couldn't be prosecuted!

So, it would require an amendment, as Dr Paul admits may be the case.

bachwards | January 18, 2008, 7:10am | #

Franklin Harris,

I understand that the divide has been around for a lot longer than 10 years and that there is some ambiguity about its origins, but from my perspective, for most of the past decade up until last week, the invectives and pettiness were mainly coming from only one of the camps. I have little doubt that some may like to go after Rockwell/Mises for personal reasons, but I also have no doubt that others simply believe that continuing to tolerate or ignore that segment of libertarianism causes more harm than good.

MikeP | January 18, 2008, 7:12am | #

Is there any money in this?

You might want to write the Wayne State linguist who asked for hints on the word's origins.

Maybe there's a nominal prize, with a jackpot if it becomes an OED word of the year within a decade.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 7:16am | #

I'm sure most white supremacists are proud to be Americans. So, I guess Cesar, Ken Schultz, and thoreau will be emigrating soon.

If you disagree with Ron Paul's positions, or you think he won't be true to his positions, or you simply don't like him personally, I can completely understand not supporting him.

I don't get this "I can't support the same person those people support!" nonsense. That's what's kept libertarians in the 0.5% ghetto for 30+ years. Ever heard the expression "politics makes strange bedfellows"?

Eric Dondero | January 18, 2008, 7:35am | #

Our Congressional District here in South Texas has a significant Hispanic population, in some towns it's over 80% Hispanic. Victoria, Port Lavaca, and even Freeport, 10 miles away from where Ron Paul lives in Lake Jackson is heavily Hispanic.

I cannot imagine this all going over well with District residents and voters.

What's worse, is Paul is poisoning the well for GOP efforts for future Hispanic outreach, very important for Texas Republicans, in particular.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 7:46am | #

Hilarious thread at Ron Paul Forums about how Reason and TNR are teaming up to destroy Ron Paul.

peachy | January 18, 2008, 7:49am | #

Hmm, so if "bad thing X" and "good thing Y" cannot co-exist, and we currently have X... then we must forever give up hope of acquiring Y? And here I was thinking that the solution would be to discard X. Oh, what a fool was I!

LP member | January 18, 2008, 7:51am | #

I used to be an open borders Libertarian and agreed with jacob Hornberger on the issue, but over the past ten years, I've come to realize that being "open borders" is stupid so long as our government keeps offering all sorts of goodies to undocumented immigrants. If it was all about the free movement of people in a free market environment, then fine. I'm all for immigration. But so long as MY tax dollars are being used to educate the children of undocumented immigrants, pay for their health care and God-knows what else, then I say round them up and kick them out.

I also oppose native born Americans sucking on the government teat. We NEED to end this massive giveaway culture of thought in DC. Once we do, then freedom of movement and free markets will truly be free.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 7:53am | #

peachy,

I think the income tax is a bad idea. But I sure as heck don't think it would be a good idea to get rid of the income tax, replace it with nothing, and maintain our current level of spending.

Sometimes partially implementing a libertarian philosophy is worse than not implementing it at all.

The Infraggable Krunk | January 18, 2008, 8:04am | #

Sorry, LP member. Around here, if you think that people crossing the US/Mexican border should even be subjected to the inconvenience of doing so at an official checkpoint, you're ignorant, racist, and probably a Southern Baptist fundamenatlist who has nightmares about brown people speaking in strange tongues while they rape your daughter.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 8:07am | #

It's official: Justin Raimondo is nuts.

peachy | January 18, 2008, 8:19am | #

No doubt that's true, but I fear your equation is not the same as mine. You suggest that if we have two bad things W and Z, then removing only one might exacerbate the other. And that's a perfectly reasonable equation with respect to your example.

My equation is rather different, however - while removing X is eminently worthwhile in its own right, it also allows us to acquire Y (where, for example X = welfare and Y = freer immigration.)

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 8:34am | #

peachy,

OK, I get what you mean. But the current piling on Dr Paul is because he opposes open borders, not because he opposes the welfare state...that is, people here are criticizing him for not supporting Y before getting rid of X.

DavidS | January 18, 2008, 8:38am | #

Does anyone know what Ron Paul would do on trade if elected?

I understand he'd pull the US out of the World Trade Organization. But would he then move to free trade on a unilateral basis?

If yes, how quickly? If no, what would he do instead?

cosmo beltway spam | January 18, 2008, 8:43am | #

Hates brown people!
Racist!
Bible-swilling moonshine-thumping hick!
Nativist!
Stormfront!

svf | January 18, 2008, 8:49am | #

I've heard Ron Paul say more than once that the illegal immigrants have unfairly become the "scapegoats" when the real problem is the economy and welfare state that "subsidizes and encourages" immigration. Which is pretty much, you know, true.

Of course, the Minutemen won't point that out but if they want to vote for him anyway, great.

-- open borders idealist, Ron Paul realist

robc | January 18, 2008, 8:51am | #

For those who say things like "now he has lost my vote", I have a question. Why did he have it to begin with? As pointed out, his position is clear on his website, didnt you fucking read it? This isnt some brand new thing. Oh, ditto the newsletter stuff.

Dave Krueger | January 18, 2008, 8:52am | #

What exactly is the definition of "Patriot community"?

robc | January 18, 2008, 8:53am | #

Krunk,

Good call. I think immigrants should be inconvenienced by going thru a check point and Im a southern baptist (no daughters to worry about though).

svf | January 18, 2008, 8:54am | #

welfare state that "subsidizes and encourages" ILLEGAL immigration. Which is pretty much, you know, true.

need more coffee... or beer.. or something...

John-David | January 18, 2008, 8:57am | #

Sorry, but what was wrong with that Raimondo article, crimethink? Seemed quite reasonable (heh!) to me.

robc | January 18, 2008, 8:59am | #

MikeP,

What did you think of the Badnarik immigration plan from 4 years ago?

If you dont recall it was basically:

1. Checkpoints for easy access to guess worker permit
2. Shoot any MFer crossing the border anywhere else

I personally wanted to add on:
3. Eliminate the minimum wage

With those 3 and STRONGLY encouraging current illegals to go home and check in properly, Im fine with any amount of immigration. How fast guest workers can get on a citizenship track is another issue.

MikeP | January 18, 2008, 9:03am | #

I've come to realize that being "open borders" is stupid so long as our government keeps offering all sorts of goodies to undocumented immigrants.

Um... If the borders were open, then immigrants would not be undocumented: There would be no goodies handed out to undocumented immigrants.

But so long as MY tax dollars are being used to educate the children of undocumented immigrants, pay for their health care and God-knows what else, then I say round them up and kick them out.

I like the way you name the only two goodies that immigrants -- documented or undocumented -- get and then imagine there must also be an unenumerable panoply of other welfare benefits too.

Matt | January 18, 2008, 9:07am | #

from the Raimondo link

>>>>And now I learn, from inside sources, that Reason senior editor Brian Doherty, author of the monumental Radicals for Capitalism, a “freewheeling” history of the American libertarian movement, is in danger of being fired because he’s too pro-Paul

Anyone care to comment on this? Matt, Brian, Nick?

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 9:09am | #

John-David,

Raimondo implies that Reason has been out to get Ron Paul from the start, which is ludicrous, as anyone who had been paying attention to Reason for the past, oh, seven months would know. Or, someone who bothered to look up articles and blog posts in the online archives, or perhaps leaf through the current issue that has Ron Paul's face on the front and a glowingly supportive article inside.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 9:11am | #

Matt,

I really, really doubt that's true, but either way, they're not going to comment on it.

MikeP | January 18, 2008, 9:15am | #

robc,

The government has a compelling public interest to know who is crossing the border and the legitimate authority to exclude entry of an individual for a valid cause, such as his being a terrorist, felon, foreign agent, or carrier of contagion. But that is pretty much where any authority derived from individual rights ends. In particular, quotas are right out.

I'm not big on shooting anyone crossing anywhere else, but certainly anyone who did not clear an official entry point under such an open policy can be presumed to be a threat to the public weal.

You don't need to build a fence if you open the gates.

John-David | January 18, 2008, 9:16am | #

Hmm, it seemed to me that Raimondo was implying that once Ron Paul began to be taken seriously (like, after the successful fund-raising) that Reason knew they had to "take him out" or else risk losing their status as being cool. Something like that. The best way to do that is by smearing Dr. Paul far worse than the rest of the media put together, which seems to be what Reason has been doing lately.

John | January 18, 2008, 9:19am | #

The Paulites have a legitmate complaint on this. When it was cool to be behind Paul, Reason never touched his positions on immigration. Now that it is no longer cool to be for Paul the Reason staff is Shocked!! that Paul is a restrictionist. Paul was a restrictionist all last year when they were shilling for him, why is it so damned important now? What a crock of shit.

georgia christgau paraphrase | January 18, 2008, 9:24am | #

>>>>And now I learn, from inside sources, that Reason senior editor Brian Doherty, author of the monumental Radicals for Capitalism, a “freewheeling” history of the American libertarian movement, is in danger of being fired because he’s too pro-Paul

Why? Why is it always Bobby Kennedy,John Lennon and Brian Doherty?
Why for once couldn't it be Richard Nixon,Paul McCartneys or Jesse Walker?

to paraphrase the notorious obituary

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 9:28am | #

John-David,

Good explanation, except it doesn't even remotely fit the facts. The Reason writers celebrated his beating John McCain in cash on hand for the 2nd quarter, his moneybombs on Nov 5 and Dec 16, and oh yeah, they put him on the friggin front cover of their current issue.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 9:33am | #

And if anything, Reason's change in attitude toward Dr Paul came at a time when he was underperforming, not "becoming more serious". It came on the heels of disappointing showings in Iowa and NH, where the young Paul voters without landlines were supposed to prove all the pollsters wrong.

Nick | January 18, 2008, 9:34am | #

Would immigrants come here from Mexico if there was no welfare available to them? Some would and they would have to work to live. Some wouldn't and that would be good not only for everyone including the Mexicans who come here to work as the negative stigma of being a Mexican immigrant or guest worker would be lessened and eventually disappear. Hopefully, anyway. Racists, well there's not much we can or should do for you.

John-David | January 18, 2008, 9:36am | #

crimethink,

Ok, the fundraising was a bad example, but I only used that to show Dr. Paul was starting to be taken seriously, not that that was the cause for Reason to begin attacking him. You're right, it was after NH and Iowa, that this guy who had been getting press for his fundraising started being looked at once again as nothing more than a fringe candidate, and then Reason decided to jump ship.

Pig Mannix | January 18, 2008, 9:45am | #

Hilarious thread at Ron Paul Forums about how Reason and TNR are teaming up to destroy Ron Paul.

This is a bit like hearing your mother-in-law just drove over a cliff in your BMW - unfortunately, Paul's campaign is probably toast. But on the bright side, apparently the beltway libs are going down with him....

William R | January 18, 2008, 9:47am | #

Justin Raimondo Why Beltway Libertarians are smearing Ron Paul

dough r t | January 18, 2008, 9:48am | #

man that would suck if Reason fired like the only true-blue libertarian on staff... why wasn't he made editor-in-chief after gillespie, anyway?

John-David | January 18, 2008, 9:51am | #

Anyway, it's kind of interesting watching the old libertarian alliance shatter in front of our eyes. That's the real story here.

William R | January 18, 2008, 9:58am | #

The Reasonoids are getting desperate. They've been exposed as frauds. Just beltway lackeys. So what do they do, Ron Paul doesn't like illegal immigration. Well neither did Milton Friedman. Thomas Sowell and Friedman's fellow Nobel Laureate don't like it either.

See how simple that is.

dhex | January 18, 2008, 9:58am | #

Good explanation, except it doesn't even remotely fit the facts. The Reason writers celebrated his beating John McCain in cash on hand for the 2nd quarter, his moneybombs on Nov 5 and Dec 16, and oh yeah, they put him on the friggin front cover of their current issue.

that was all part of the dastardly beltwaycosmopolibertaritoid conspiracy, dude. they're lulling the opposition into a false sense of complacency before they strike!

for me the real question is why do so many libertarians have poor self esteem? i.e. they're constantly being assaulted by cool kids (some of whom wear leather jackets!!!) and being laughed at during cocktail parties funded by the neo-con elite - i mean neo-conservative, not neo-confederate, of course.

bachwards | January 18, 2008, 10:00am | #

I thought I heard something about a Raimondo article on Beltway Libertarians. Does anyone happen to have a link?

William R | January 18, 2008, 10:04am | #

Gary Becker, Friedman's fellow Nobel Laureate

William R | January 18, 2008, 10:05am | #

Why Beltway libertarians are smearing Ron Paul

Matt Welch | January 18, 2008, 10:07am | #

Why don't you go back to "Suck" magazine, Matt?

Because I never worked there?

And now I learn, from inside sources, that Reason senior editor Brian Doherty, author of the monumental Radicals for Capitalism, a “freewheeling” history of the American libertarian movement, is in danger of being fired because he’s too pro-Paul

An utter, laughable, desperate, tragi-comic, paranoid lie.

Juan | January 18, 2008, 10:10am | #

Do you guys really think that all of the illegals (or even a plurality of them) cross the border for the welfare state?

joe | January 18, 2008, 10:11am | #

You must be so proud. I guess they got the newsletters.

Isn't it possible to be pro-immigration, but anti -illegal immigration?

Sure. But when you start calling for changing the Constitution to declare vast swathes of United State citizens to be "illegals," you are not pro-immigrant.

John | January 18, 2008, 10:11am | #

Just one question Matt, why didn't Reason ever cover Paul's views on immigration before now? It strikes me as a real cheap shot to go after Paul on immigration now after giving him a free pass all last year. That is bad journalism and worse yet poor integrity.

joe | January 18, 2008, 10:15am | #

What are you, kidding? Didn't cover Paul's views on immigration?

Look in the archives.

Rob D. | January 18, 2008, 10:24am | #

Raimondo again tears through all the stink and writes a wonderful piece.

I used to cringe when I thought of going to:

AntiWar.com
Lewrockwell.com
Mises.org
IndependentInstitute.com

I bought into the whole, if you're a "Reasonite" or "Catoite" that these sites are fringe. Sorry to break it to you people, but when I actually went there and gave these places a shot per se, I didn't see what all the fuss was about.

Do you guys seriously think you're doing any good by trying to marginalize others who don't fit into your style of reporting?

Thirdpartywatch
Gordon Unleashed

There's plenty of other competition out there Reason. Don't act like your shit doesn't stink.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 10:24am | #

Right, John. They've never talked about that before.

John | January 18, 2008, 10:25am | #

"What are you, kidding? Didn't cover Paul's views on immigration?"

I just ran a search on the site for Ron Paul and immigration and before 2008 and the newsletter scanles, I see articles on immigration and articles on Ron Paul but never the two seem to meet beyond the occasional "I don't agree with him on immigration qualifier". Now, Reason feels the need to link him to the Minute Men and focus on his immigration views, something they were willing ot ignore or minimize before. I am not a Ron Paul supporter but if his immigration views are that bad and worthy of coverage, why did Reason support him in the first place? This strikes me as nothing but CYA on Reason's part. They made the mistake of supporting a guy who has some pretty lousy qualities. Now after the qualities have been revealed they decide to pounce on the numerous things that they ignored or were willing to tolerate before. Sorry, I don't think that is fair.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 10:27am | #

But when you start calling for changing the Constitution to declare vast swathes of United State citizens to be "illegals," you are not pro-immigrant.

I wasn't aware that anchor babies comprised vast swaths of the US citizenry. Plus, I don't think Dr Paul wants to revoke the citizenship of people already born to illegal immigrants here in the US, just prevent such births from granting citizenship in the future.

Matt Welch | January 18, 2008, 10:31am | #

Just one question Matt, why didn't Reason ever cover Paul's views on immigration before now?

From our current cover story:

Paul does not [at this college rally] mention abortion or immigration—areas where his views are more conventionally conservative and not of great appeal to this age group. He’s against abortion and thinks the fetus is a human life deserving of state protection, but he also thinks that like all such crimes against persons, abortion is a matter for states to decide without federal interference. He thinks that border defense is a legitimate function of government, and that government has been doing a bad job of it. He wants tougher border enforcement, including a border wall; he wants to eliminate birthright citizenship; and he wants to end the public subsidies that might attract illegal immigrants. Paul’s style of libertarianism includes a populist streak of distrust for foreign forces overwhelming our sovereignty, whether through the United Nations, international trade pacts, immigration, or a feared “North American Union” between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

From a Brian Doherty piece last summer:

When it comes to immigration, Paul believes the federal government can legitimately defend the border, and thinks that, in a world of government benefits and minimum wage laws, it is appropriate for government to do so stringently. I strongly disagree with how border defense has been done in practice, as do most libertarians. But as Paul told me, it doesn't mark him as essentially unlibertarian, but rather falls within a potentially legitimate set of actions for non-anarchist libertarians who do believe in the nation-state.

Paul's concern with immigration is of a piece with his right-populist strains, an obsession with "sovereignty" that feeds his fevered opposition to international trade pacts and the UN. Combined with his strong emphasis on trash-talking the Federal Reserve and advocating a return to gold, it's the sort of thing that strikes many other libertarians as, if not inherently unlibertarian, sort of cranky and kooky, and that led me to note to The New Republic that many libertarians (though not me) think of Paul as a bit of a yokel.

And a yokel with some ugly things in his past that no libertarian wants to be linked with. As The New York Times Magazine, among others, reported, Paul's newsletter during his years out of Washington contained some ugly race-baiting comments about the overwhelmingly criminal nature of black males in D.C. Paul says the comments were written by a staffer, but he's refused to say who and hasn't gone through any serious garment-rending and regret about it, though he did disavow them.

In addition, our website has a handy search function.

John | January 18, 2008, 10:35am | #

Matt,

How is the first quote anything more than just giving his views? Reason certainly didn't consider not supporting him for them. Why are they so loathsome now. The second quote includes the sentence, "But as Paul told me, it doesn't mark him as essentially unlibertarian, but rather falls within a potentially legitimate set of actions for non-anarchist libertarians who do believe in the nation-state." To me that says that Reason didn't consider his views on immigration to be beyond the pale or that big of a deal. Now that Paul gets slammed with the newsletters you come out and run a post "More Than 17 Minutemen Agree". I think it is a cheap shot and the kind of cheap shot that Reason ussually reserves for the likes of John McCain and would have never made at Paul before the newsletter scandles came out.

Roger | January 18, 2008, 10:38am | #

While I don't have the smoking gun to decide if the perceived "smear campaign" was coordinated or not, I suspect not personally, Raimondo's genuine effort to read the Kirchick quotes in context is exactly what needed to be said and written about. Too many people seem to be too busy to read the actual literature in question. How irresponsible.

Kent in Soviet Kanuckistan | January 18, 2008, 10:42am | #

Why is it that Americans are so anti-immigration yet whenever they don't get the person they want elected say they're going to move to Canada?? They think its fine to close the door on Canadians and Mexicans, but think they have a right to come here when things don't go their way. Just another aspect of American Exceptionalism, I guess.

I'm starting to think that we should consider closing our borders to U.S. immigration in retaliation.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 10:44am | #

Roger,

Come seriously on. Ron Paul himself has denounced the views expressed in that newsletter and said they are foreign to his own. This argument that the stuff in the newsletters isn't really that bad isn't going to go anywhere.

Roger | January 18, 2008, 10:45am | #

I bought into the whole, if you're a "Reasonite" or "Catoite" that these sites are fringe. Sorry to break it to you people, but when I actually went there and gave these places a shot per se, I didn't see what all the fuss was about.

I value almost every written piece that comes out of both of the so-called camps, meaning the articles and not the gossip. What is interesting to note is if one goes to events such as the NH Liberty Forum and other conferences like this, the preceived fringe that you speak about overwhelmingly swamps out the token Reason/Objectivist presence if there happens to be one at all.

joe | January 18, 2008, 10:49am | #

Kent, did you get The West Wing up there?

There was a great episode involving some hunters from Montana who accidently wandered across the border, where Mounties attempted to detain them.

Except the hunters had 12 guage shotguns, semiautomatic rifles, camouflage outfits, and night vision goggles, while the Mounties had 9mm pistols and bright red coats.

There was a Fish and Game guy who couldn't stop chuckling. That was a good episode.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 10:49am | #

John,

The title of the Gillespie post from May that I just linked to was "I [Heart] Ron Paul (except for Immigration and the Gold Standard". Then there was the piece from December where they showed his immigration ad for NH, and it was roundly condemned (even by Justin Raimondo himself.

Roger | January 18, 2008, 10:49am | #

crimethink: I agree, the situation was handled very sloppily in the official sense, one may even infer that the official campaign line is inconsistent at best and a pathetic lie at worst. In my opinion at least, the outrage over quotes taken out of context and propagated in these circles under the presupposition that what the newsletters said in context is morally prepugnant I can't agree with. It's wholly understandable how even in context some "sensitive" types might react and make a big deal about them; "those types" always do react this way.

Matt Welch | January 18, 2008, 10:50am | #

How is the first quote anything more than just giving his views?

One of the things we do at this magazine is explain and explore people's views, without necessarily issuing a scorecard every time on the spot.

Reason certainly didn't consider not supporting him for them.

We don't institutionally support any candidate. We (hopefully) write about stuff of interest to our audience. Ron Paul was, is, and will continue to be of interest to our audience. Different staffers like and dislike different politicians, and we usually poll our writers & editors about who they plan on voting for before an election.

Why are they so loathsome now. ... Now that Paul gets slammed with the newsletters you come out and run a post "More Than 17 Minutemen Agree". I think it is a cheap shot and the kind of cheap shot

What's interesting is that you're taking a post that is 90% an excerpt of someone else's writing -- an excerpt that, again, is of presumed interest to our audience -- and from there making the extrapolation that I'm calling his views "loathesome." Not my style, really; what interested me in particular about this excerpt is that it contained news value of Paul seeking out support of a community I happen to know a little about.

How is it a "cheap shot" to point out the (unknown to me) fact that Paul is actively courting Minutemen-style groups? It's just a fact, and there are plenty of people who are interested in that fact, whether they agree with Minutemen-style groups or disagree.

crimethink | January 18, 2008, 10:53am | #

psst, Matt...it would be easier to just blame everything from before on Nick Gillespie!

John | January 18, 2008, 10:55am | #

Matt,

It is not surprising that Ron Paul spoke to minutemen groups given his views and the fact that there is a Caucus or Primary or some such in Nevada coming up. I am sure he speaks to a lot of groups and I would bet this is not the first time he has talked to Minutemen or lord knows who else. I don't see it as particularly news worthy that he did. What was the point of putting it up except to imply that Paul is a nutcase who talks to nutcase groups like the Minutemen? Further, I doubt that it would have been posted had it happened in say November. We will never know but I doubt it.

Matt Welch | January 18, 2008, 11:12am | #

John -- So I'm getting this straight, we're not supposed point out any fact that may be construed as linking Paul to nutcase groups?

You're right that this would not have been posted in November, because back then the CCIR wasn't sending out e-mails about how awesome Ron Paul was. They were more focused then on Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Lou Dobbs (or, negatively, on John McCain and Mike Huckabee). I find the shift of their enthusiasm, and Paul's courting of it, to be an interesting new development worth a mention.

William R | January 18, 2008, 11:17am | #

Why on earth would a so called libertarian magazine be opposed to Free Market Money?? Letting consumers decide what money they want to use. It is the money of the constitution

"No state shall . . . coin money, . . . or make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts . . ." (Article I, section 10).

William R | January 18, 2008, 11:19am | #

What's so nutty about wanting to enforce our borders?? We are a country last time I looked

joe | January 18, 2008, 11:42am | #

How dare you slander Ron Paul by pointing out that he's gained the support of people whose ideas are completely decent and reasonable?

Have I got that about right?

MikeP | January 18, 2008, 11:54am | #

Why on earth would a so called libertarian magazine be opposed to Free Market Money??

Do you have a cite of an article that takes a position against free money?

I don't know about the writers, but whenever the topic comes up, it appears the majority of commenters here are pro-free money.

You may be misconstruing the fact that most think there are many more important libertarian issues than getting rid of the Fed as ardent support for the Fed.

What's so nutty about wanting to enforce our borders??

There's nothing nutty about wanting to enforce national borders. What's nutty -- or, at least, not particularly libertarian -- is wanting to prevent harmless people from crossing those borders.

exLibertarian | January 18, 2008, 12:04pm | #

Joined the party in the 70s - left in the 90s; got tired of all the childish whinners.. "If the candidate isn't "Perfect", we don't want him." Although I still have libertarian leanings, I began to see many of the Libertarian views as extremely selfish and foolish.

I'm not a Minuteman member, but I know quite a few. Those who don't know the MM groups always tend to lump them together; that's ignorance showing. MM groups are more diverse than most people realize.

Living on the border in AZ, I am directly impacted by what's been going on. Most of the Open Borders proponents have little insight and understanding of the problems we who live here face, and have opinons that deserve the same consideration as someone who's never had cancer "knowingly" telling others what the experience is like.

Justin Raimondo | January 18, 2008, 12:08pm | #

Matt, the news of the threat to Doherty's job comes from two sources, both of which I trust. You aren't the only one who can use anonymous sources to needle your enemies. You can dish it out, but you sure can't take it.

You threatened Doherty, for being "too pro-Paul" -- how else can we explain that rambling blog entry by him the other day, in which he clearly was talking about Paul and the phony "controversey" over the newsletters, but didn't dare mention specifics?

You and your Beltway suck-ups can go str8 to hell -- and you will, when the Paulians start boycotting your rotten magazine. Not to mention contacting the advertisers and donors.

Screw you, Matt -- and, believe you me, we will .....

Matt Welch | January 18, 2008, 12:16pm | #

Matt, the news of the threat to Doherty's job comes from two sources, both of which I trust.

I'm Brian's boss; your (*cough*) "two sources" are not. It's a clumsy -- and crazy -- lie.

crw | January 18, 2008, 12:18pm | #

Is anyone really surprised the WorldNetDaily types are now seeing a conspiracy amongst the Reason/Cato types to tear down Ron Paul? The same mentality that sees disparate facts like "Trans Texas Corridor" and "Security and Prosperity Partnership" and "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" and sees a shadowy conspiracy to undermine US sovereignty and create a North America Union is going to see the flurry of coverage and editorializing on the less than savory aspects of Ron Paul's history, and the less than fully libertarian aspects of Ron Paul's candidacy, and see a sinister conspiracy amongst journalistic elites to destroy his campaign.

Reasonable people (drink, if you like) of course see that this is just legitimate journalism, and all the posting is because these have suddenly become important topics. And of course writers of the self proclaimed magazine of "free markets and free minds" are going to both investigate the story and have editorial opinions. They would be remiss if they didn't.

dhex | January 18, 2008, 12:21pm | #

jesus justin it's a wonder you're not an international superstar just yet.

you're so eloquent!

Justin Raimondo | January 18, 2008, 12:22pm | #

Oh yeah, it's really "crazy" that some puffed-up Beltway editor would fire an employee for his political views. My sources know what happened, and are in a position to speak with at least some authority. More I cannot say.

But why is this so bad? After all, Reason is private property, you have the right to hire and fire anyone you choose: let's just be upfront about what's going on here.

Justin Raimondo | January 18, 2008, 12:25pm | #

"I'm Brian's boss; your (*cough*) 'two sources' are not."

Yeah, but you're the one who threatened him. Why not be a man, admit it and be done with it?

Matt Welch | January 18, 2008, 12:26pm | #

Oh yeah, it's really "crazy" that some puffed-up Beltway editor would fire an employee for his political views.

No, it's crazy that Doherty's job is in any kind of jeapordy, that I or anyone else has "threatened" him, and that I'm even arguing with the voices in your head.

.| | January 18, 2008, 12:26pm | #

And BTW, Matt, when did you stop beating your wife?

Justin Raimondo | January 18, 2008, 12:30pm | #

You're arguing with voices coming from within your own office and its periphery.

Don't talk down to me, you asshole. Libertarians are on to you, and you aren't going to like the results.

VikingMoose | January 18, 2008, 12:46pm | #

You and your Beltway suck-ups can go str8 to hell -- and you will, when the Paulians start boycotting your rotten magazine. Not to mention contacting the advertisers and donors.

Screw you, Matt -- and, believe you me, we will .....

Justin:Matt::Edweirdooo:URKOBOLD??

srsly: there's something METAEDWEIRDO going on with Justin's posts. With a little of Dave W's text type sneaking in :)

Jake Boone | January 18, 2008, 12:47pm | #

Would it be too much to ask that you name sources, Justin? (Or at least give us a better idea what you mean by the "periphery" of Matt Welch's office?) I've read enough Balko stories to know that I should avoid reliance on the claimed word of anonymous informants. Nothing personal; I'm just skeptical of this sort of thing until I see proof.

Cesar | January 18, 2008, 12:47pm | #

I don't consider myself "open borders". I don't like what the term implies.

I prefer high walls with wide gates. I doubt the Minutemen subscribe to the latter part, though.

VM | January 18, 2008, 12:48pm | #

"Don't talk down to me, you asshole. Libertarians are on to you, and you aren't going to like the results."

Mess with the bull and you get the horns?

It is! It is!

*hugs* EDWEIRDOOOO! You're back!!!

Ali | January 18, 2008, 12:57pm | #

I prefer high walls with wide gates. I doubt the Minutemen subscribe to the latter part, though.

Can we use that to scale where people stand on immigration. For example, McCain would be 0-infinity (zero-ft high wall, open gate across the border), Hunter would be infinity-zero (infinitely high wall, closed gate across the border), and Rudy, Mitt, Paul et al. would be in between.

I would go for 1-50 or something.

Jake Boone | January 18, 2008, 1:02pm | #

Then I'd be a 0-0 guy, just 'cause I think that might break the model. :)

MikeP | January 18, 2008, 1:07pm | #

For example, McCain would be 0-infinity (zero-ft high wall, open gate across the border)

Do you really think that McCain is for completely free migration? It is my perception that he simply wanted to improve bad immigration law, not that he would go so far as to eliminate all quotas and visa expirations.

Of course, it is most likely that McCain thought immigration reform would be a unifying plank that would be politically appreciated by a wide segment of people, and that he was utterly surprised by the backlash. He has since publicly backed down from his freer immigration stance.

Eric Dondero | January 18, 2008, 1:07pm | #

Justin, who the fuck are you talking about "we libertarians are on to you."

You ain't no Goddamned libertarian. You're a Leftist San Francisco Puke who has infiltrated our libertarian movement with your Anti-War nonsense. Get Lost!

And "your sources." Gimmee a break. You ain't got no sources because EVERYONE in the libertarian movement hates your mother-fucking guts. Your sources are only Leftist Moveon.org slime.

And take Rockwell with you...