Ron Paul Exists!

He's been banned from the Pajamas Media poll, he's got about 1/100 as much media exposure as Tom Tancredo, but Ron Paul finally got a forum on national cable news yesterday. Lou Dobbs' show booked him (in no small part due to his anti-immigration stance):

It's odd to see Paul in this format. He really doesn't get the language of these cable appearences; he couldn't dodge a question if it was tossed 100 feet over his head.

Comments

[biologist]

maybe he doesn't want to dodge questions - he finally got an opportunity to plainly state his views for a national audience. the guy deserves respect for that reason, if nothing else. he's more of a straight talker than McCain. maybe they could form a ticket together.

[mercury]

The mainstream press would jump all over a ticket with Ron Paul on it. Also, the GOP is going to need some geographical balance if Giuliani or McCain win the nomination. I found his candor to be refreshing. I am not so hot on his immigration stance, but it's great to see a not-completely-wacky libertarian in Congress. Hopefully, his message will connect with some people who wouldn't hear it otherwise.

[jf]

Not really sure what he should have dodged. I thought it was a pretty good interview. He certainly did better than Kinky did at that debate a few months back.

[thoreau]

Yeah, he didn't sound too bad.

[tros]

I disagree completely with his immigration stance but I understand that being from Texas skews his views on that issue. As long as he comes up with a way to allow Mexicans to immigrate here legally without imposing any artificial barriers that's fine with me. Any politician that runs must be against "illegal" imigration. The trick is how to make that immigration legal, because it will continue regardless of the legal status.

I think ending the drug war will do a low to ease tensions and fears about Mexicans immigrating to work in the United States.

[Warren]

He sounded great. There was no need to dodge softball questions. SO very glad it wasn't actually Dobbs doing the interview. His immigration bullet points make me cry (No birthright citizenship?!), but what he actually said wasn't offensive (OK Ron we can't afford to pay SS after only 18 months work. But what difference does it make if they're native or imported?)

[tros]

Something about doing away with birthright citizenship is extremely disturbing to me. Why should someone be required to ask the State for permission to exist?

Why don't we institute a mandatory two thirds majority of the national population for any federal government body. That makes more sense to me. No federal government unless at least 2/3 of the population decides to vote for them. This makes just as much sense, that is to say, NONE, but if there is anyone we should be deporting it is our fucking politicians.

[disinter]

The fact that he doesn't dodge questions is the reason he has so much respect.

[J]

Has anyone read the novel Interface by Neal Stephenson and his uncle (I forget the uncle's name?) Is it just wishful thinking to think that people might at some point get fed up with politicians wiggling and maneuvering to pretend that their opinions coincide with those of the median voter?

[Dan T.]

So how exactly can Ron Paul be in any way a libertarian if he's anti-immigrant? The notion that the side of an imaginary line that your born on determines your rights as a person seems about as anti-libertarian as you can get.

[rdkraus]

Same as Milton Friedman, open borders are great, but not if you have a welfare state.

[Antarctic Penguin]

I've got to agree with Dan. T. on this one, there are Six issues I use to judge whether or not someone is AT ALL libertarian or not:

1. If they think someone can be denied liberty based on the place of their birth.
2. If think you can be denied liberty based on who you are sexually attracted to.
3. If they think you can be denied liberty based on your chosen religion/philosophy.
4. If they think you can be denied your choice of weapon with which to defend yourself.
5. If they think you can be denied freedom of speech based on the number of days it is from an election.
6. If the government has the right to tell you what chemicals you can put if your own body.

If someone is unlibertarian on any of those, they are not libertarian at all.

[Antarctic Penguin]

"Same as Milton Friedman, open borders are great, but not if you have a welfare state."

The problem is the welfare state, not the open borders. I am not going to deny people the right to smoke just because we have quasi-socialized medicine. What I am going to do is oppose socialized medicine and say the people should have to pay for their own medical needs.

[Rhywun]

I guess I'm not at all libertarian; oh well, back to the Daily Worker for me.

[Dan T.]

All functioning states are welfare states, haven't you noticed? For some reason nobody wants to live in the ones that aren't.

[Antarctic Penguin]

"All functioning states are welfare states, haven't you noticed? For some reason nobody wants to live in the ones that aren't."

It isn't that no one wants to live in ones that are not it is that the type of person who wants to be a "leader" of a state usually wants to increase the number of people "dependent" on him or her. If people are dependednt on you, you have power over them. "Leaders" love power.

[garsh]

If Paul passes the Oprah smooch test we're in. And if he smooches the O AND jumps on a couch we've got a lock on the White House for generations.

[biologist]

damn squirrels!

Ron Paul isn't anti-immigrant, he's anti-illegal immigrant.

also, why shouldn't there be some restrictions on birthright citizenship? if one is born here and both parents are legal residents or citizens (either natural or naturalized), then you're a citizen too. if parents are illegal immigrants (or tourists on vacation for that matter), why should their children be considered citizens, even if born within our borders?

[Dan T.]

Ron Paul isn't anti-immigrant, he's anti-illegal immigrant.

So could a libertarian be anti-illegal drug as long as he's not anti-drug?

[biologist]

well, Dan T., I suppose the answer to your question depends on whether you accept the premise that some drugs should be illegal (that is, legally prohibited from possession, sale, etc.) and also whether you accept the premise that the government should regulate passage across the nation's borders.

[Eric Dondero]

Rudy Giuliani is the much better candidate for libertarian-minded voters for 2008. Ron Paul doesn't understand the threat that the country faces from Islamo-Fascism. He thinks that if we just surrender to the Islamo-Fascists that they will go away and leave us alone.

If we surrender to the Islamo-Fascists, they will be on our border lobbing scud missles at Brownsville, El Paso, Tucson, and San Diego faster than you can say "Allah AhuAhkbar."

Giuliani understands the threat from Islamo-Fascism and will fight a real War on Terror, not some politically correct, soft-bellied War like Bush is fighting.

Plus, Rudy is a Tax Cutter, a Privatizer, and Tolerant on social matters.

Libertarians nationwide are rallying behind Rudy. Just today we learn that a bunch of Top libertarian and conservative California Congressman and Legislators are endorsing Giuliani.

Libertarians for Giuliani at http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997 - 2003

[Dmitri]

I think we do have a problem with illegal immigration, and Ron Paul sees this being a doctor and from Texas. A pregnant Mexican runs across the border has their baby in America and then gets to stay here because their baby was born in America. Now, the welfare state pays for the hospital bill, and also for the illegal Mom and Dad to live here. The welfare state is the problem.

The other way to look at this is we are rewarding the pregnant Mexican for running across the border to have their baby. They see this as an easy way to live in America, and also have hopefully a better life for their child. If running across the border wouldn't get them either of these benifits because their child isn't a citizen and they can't live here, they would not be enticed to do such things.

Conversely, if we rewarded them for becoming legal citizens they would want to. But why go through all that when you can just run across the border and get all the welfare benefits anyway?

But, I agree, if Ron Paul gets on Oprah and jumps on the couch he's in for sure. Let's call up O and see if she will interview him.

[Warren]

Antarctic Penguin,
Wow I've always considered myself more libertarian than thou. But you say that since I'm in favor prohibiting private citizens from owning stinger missiles, I'm not libertarian at all?

[Dmitri]

Giuliani? Libertarian? Please...

[ChicagoTom]

also, why shouldn't there be some restrictions on birthright citizenship? if one is born here and both parents are legal residents or citizens (either natural or naturalized), then you're a citizen too. if parents are illegal immigrants (or tourists on vacation for that matter), why should their children be considered citizens, even if born within our borders?

If that were the case, I wouldn't be a citizen despite the fact that I was born here and have lived here all my life. My parents got their legal status via Reagan's amnesty (they came here legally on a tourist Visa but never left). My family never once took any "welfare" or any public aid. My mother worked as a waitress from her mid 20's until today (she is 59 -- and she is still working), paid her taxes, and never committed a crime (other than being here illegally). When she came you could get a SS number and work.

Why should I have been punished because my parents left a poor country and came here to make a better life for themselves and their children?? No one was clamoring for restrictions on birthright citizenship when it was just Europeans -- but now that its the dark skinned people all of a sudden its problematic? Why?

[Dan T.]

I think we do have a problem with illegal immigration, and Ron Paul sees this being a doctor and from Texas. A pregnant Mexican runs across the border has their baby in America and then gets to stay here because their baby was born in America. Now, the welfare state pays for the hospital bill, and also for the illegal Mom and Dad to live here. The welfare state is the problem.

The other way to look at this is we are rewarding the pregnant Mexican for running across the border to have their baby. They see this as an easy way to live in America, and also have hopefully a better life for their child. If running across the border wouldn't get them either of these benifits because their child isn't a citizen and they can't live here, they would not be enticed to do such things.

Conversely, if we rewarded them for becoming legal citizens they would want to. But why go through all that when you can just run across the border and get all the welfare benefits anyway?

So the problem is what, exactly? That the United States is a place where we refuse to let poor people die en masse in the streets?

[biologist]

ok, Dan T., you win the straw man contest

[Some James]

People were clamoring for restrictions on Europeans too, like 100 years ago, when Eye-talians and Polacks and other people with cultures and religions totally different from "ours" were coming in and living in relatively closed off communities and not learning English (sorry, American) and all that. Obviously all these people could never assimilate and our country would go into immediate and irreversible decline.

I'd listen to someone and possibly take them seriously if they said and appeared to believe that if we're to try to control who gets in and out of the country (and perhaps we should for both nat'l security and economic reasons) then the number of legal immigrants allowed in would have to be (and should be) vastly expanded as well.

And that whole no-birthright citizenship thing runs into the little problem of the 14th Amendment (or is it the 15th?) Any way about it, it's basically no-go. As it should be.

[Franklin Harris]

Libertarians nationwide are rallying behind Rudy.

Eric, do the world and real libertarians a favor and stop calling yourself one.

[ChrisO]

So you anti-Ron Paul folks are saying you'd rather some statist, imperialist asswipe assume the presidency just because you don't like Paul's position on immigration?

I think his ideas on immigration are probably unworkable, but at least he's focused on the core problem--people coming to this country in order to sponge off of the taxpayers. I suspect he would favor a more expansive guestworker program than any of the other immigration "hawks."

[biologist]

Some James:

exactly right. American xenophobia historically hasn't been limited to dark skinned foreigners. don't forget anti-Irish sentiments and laws. if anything, our society is more open to immigration today than it has been historically.

[kwais]

I guess I disagree with Ron Paul on his stance on immigration, and on his stance on the war.

But I'll still be voting for the man.

I think the drug war and the income tax are the biggest threat on the freedom of everyday
Americans.

[Chris S.]

A pregnant Mexican runs across the border has their baby in America and then gets to stay here because their baby was born in America. Now, the welfare state pays for the hospital bill, and also for the illegal Mom and Dad to live here. The welfare state is the problem.

The other way to look at this is we are rewarding the pregnant Mexican for running across the border to have their baby. They see this as an easy way to live in America, and also have hopefully a better life for their child. If running across the border wouldn't get them either of these benifits because their child isn't a citizen and they can't live here, they would not be enticed to do such things.

You don't understand immigration law. None of this would ever happen. Parents of citizens do not automatically acquire any sort of legal status, and they're generally deported (if caught) unless they can demonstrate "extreme hardship," which is a very demanding standard (it's not met by simply having a citizen child). She would therefore be sent back to Mexico, and she would bring the child with her. Years later, the child would be able to legally live in this country if they could prove their citizenship. The child may be able to sponsor the parent's citizenship application at a later date, but the waitlist for Mexico is so long that this whole process probably wouldn't be complete for 25-30 years after the child was born, and the parent would likely be ineligible for citizenship anyway due to their previous immigration violations.

I would never support repealing the 14th amendment citizenship clause. There is no moral justification for this type of distinction in a country that supports equality at birth, and contrary to ill informed statements about pregnant Mexicans, this policy probably isn't that enticing to erstwhile mothers contemplating whether to risk their lives by crossing the border. Most people come here for work, not for the off chance that their offspring might be able to come here in 18 years (without them).

[JParker]

Look at the map of the 14th district, Texas Gulf Coast from Galveston to a little south of Victoria. The local "Anglos for Unlimited Immigration" chapter can probably meet at Denny's.

As far as Birthright citizenship, Since we are an Empire in fact no reason not to have an imperial citizenship.

Never seen why we should consider everyone a citizen, It is a title that can be asked for and earned by everyone that wants it native or immigrant. Consider it voter education or what have you. This also allows people you do not want their children to be automatic chattels of the state from registering them.

Not enough people take public oaths seriously anymore but check out the text of the Loyalty oath a naturalized citizen takes. It is quite explicit.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

In some cases, INS allows the oath to be taken without the clauses:

"? that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform non-combatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law?"

[Chris S.]

Rudy Giuliani is the much better candidate for libertarian-minded voters for 2008.

Thanks for the laugh, Eric. Despite my disagreement with Dr. Paul on immigration, I certainly favor him over the terrible crop of Ds and Rs this year. As for the authoritarian, anti-Second Amendment, anti-First Amendment, warmongering, unitary executive crowd, Rudy Giuliana is the best candidate since Nixon!

[Isaac Bartram]

You don't understand immigration law.

This is a common thing. Most people have never dealt with the INS. If they had they would understand what a byzantine bureaucracy it is. I have not dealt with its successor, ICE, but I can't imagine there has been any improvement.

[Chris S.]

Giuliana = Giuliani. I must be subconsciously confusing his name with the "Caligula."

[Some James]

Agreed, Isaac,

Nothing makes you appreciate being born in the US more than having foreign-born friends who've dealt with getting US visas, Green Cards and going for citizenship, and seeing all the bureaucratic hurdles and mess ups they go through.

[Chris S.]

This is a common thing. Most people have never dealt with the INS. If they had they would understand what a byzantine bureaucracy it is. I have not dealt with its successor, ICE, but I can't imagine there has been any improvement.

I've never had the pleasure of dealing with the original INS, but I can assure you that DHS-ICE is completely inscrutable, bureaucratic and incompetent. Brazil could have been a documentary about DHS were it filmed today .

[VM]

Issac and Some James - one poster has had lots of troubles getting his Significant Other in the US due to the myriad of red tape, laws, and malicious residue of bureaucracy...

(Apologies that I can't remember his name; hope all is working out for the best).

[Some James]

I dated a girl going through the Green Card then citizenship process and dealing with all the lost documents and missed deadlines due to their incompetence. Right now a friend/colleague is apparently trapped overseas because his H-1B reapplication was misfiled. Plus a myriad of intelligent, English-fluent overseas friends who've been unable to even get a travel visa here.

I failed the interview portion of the Foreign Service Exam last year, and am pretty glad, I'd hate stamping passports/doing visa interviews, and I know I'd just let everyone in.

Of course none of that is on the level of having an SO trapped abroad. Though we're also lucky that many countries don't require visas of us either.

[R C Dean]

You don't understand immigration law.

Nobody does, because, like tax law, it is too vast, ambiguous, arbitrary, and contradictory to be understandable.

[Andy]

Chris S.

Yes, the parent does not become a citizen. But every time the scenario you describe occurs, the parent holds a tearful press conference talking about being ripped away from her baby and not being able to support it from afar. And people say she should take it with her, but then "it's an American citizen, it deserves to stay!" Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but there's always a court case, medical expenses, and the like. And, of course, 90 percent of the time they just leave the baby with a relative (sometimes legal, sometimes not) because they'll be back soon enough. But while the baby is here, especially sans parents, you know who's paying for it? We are.

[Gordon]

Ron Paul should run for the Unity08 ticket.

[Andy]

Anaractic Penguin -

As to number one, refusing to acknowledge a difference in place of birth (i.e. citizenship) is essentially refusing to accept the concept of a state. This means you're an anarchist. Now, you can debate all day long as to whether being a "true" libertarian automatically requires that you be an anarchist, but that is the position you're taking. If you believe it, that's fine, but I think Ron Paul would tell you that he believes in the so-called "minarchist" school of libertarianism, which adheres to managing the least amount of rights violations in a state possible while still maintaining the integrity of that state.

You're welcome to assert that makes Ron Paul "not libertarian" or whatever, but that would be dumb. Because as a minority belief, spending a significant amount of time and energy explaining to people why they DON'T share beliefs with you is counterproductive. But that's just my two cents.

[JParker]

We have two sets of immigration law in this country.
One is for Mexicans and the other is for English speaking Asians.

Punishing virtue and ability seems to be the purpose of bureaucracy.

[Rhywun]

one poster has had lots of troubles getting his Significant Other in the US due to the myriad of red tape, laws, and malicious residue of bureaucracy

That sounds like me. He moved back "home" months ago. But that's OK; it was pretty much over anyway. Knowing three years in advance that a temporary visa eventually runs out and that the job market is rigged against non-genius immigrants are things that do not encourage a relationship in a practical-minded person such as myself. The lesson learned is: never date a non-citizen.

[Warren]

Andy,
Yes, the parent does not become a citizen. But every time the scenario you describe occurs, the parent holds a tearful press conference talking about being ripped away from her baby and not being able to support it from afar.

Really? Name a dozen in the past month. Because if it's less than that (or even ten times that) it's too rare an occurrence to bother with.

[Chris S.]

Yes, the parent does not become a citizen. But every time the scenario you describe occurs, the parent holds a tearful press conference talking about being ripped away from her baby and not being able to support it from afar. And people say she should take it with her, but then "it's an American citizen, it deserves to stay!" Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but there's always a court case, medical expenses, and the like. And, of course, 90 percent of the time they just leave the baby with a relative (sometimes legal, sometimes not) because they'll be back soon enough. But while the baby is here, especially sans parents, you know who's paying for it? We are.

Andy,

Where are you getting all of this? Immigrants are getting press conferences and they're being allowed to stay despite administrative rulings to the contrary?

I'll file this comment under the header of "Immigration Fantasy."

As for the second half, I don't doubt that some parents leave their kids with relatives in the U.S. Who pays for the kids? I don't know, the relatives perhaps, which makes these kids pretty similar to other American kids -- sometimes relatives pay, and sometimes the state pays. I don't think your frightening scenario is common enough to warrant a constitutional amendment that abridges the citizenship rights of innocent people born in the U.S.

[Black Bloke]

An interesting read here on "Birthright Citizenship in America". The quotes from the 14th Amendment's ratification debate (giving original intent) are fascinating, look also to the SCOTUS decisions that give precedent for Constitutional interpretation.

Ron Paul's position is the position of a Constitutional minarchist, rather than the position of an Anarchist (imaginary lines on a map etc.) His ideas probably match the ideas of the Lew Rockwell crowd best. I don't think very many people can consider Lew Rockwell, Hans Herman Hoppe, Murray Rothbard, Stephan Kinsella, Thomas DiLorenzo and the like as "not libertarian at all", yet they all oppose illegal immigration. What I suspect Ron Paul supports (and I know the Lew Rockwell crowd supports) is an America in which all property is privately owned.

When every last square mile of the United States is privately owned property the problem of illegal immigration, and immigration in general simply evaporates. At that point every person entering into the territory that makes up the US is either a guest visiting/using someone's property, or an intruder. Intruders are dealt with in the same that they are dealt with now.

For more perspective Here's another view similar to Ron Paul's view from a doctor in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

[Andy]

Warren,

Where do you live? I'm fairly certain it's not anywhere in the Southwest. Sadly, I've since moved away from the great Dust Bowl, but it was a fairly regular occurrence even several years ago, and I've only heard that it's grown worse since then. My point, however, isn't that these events, individually, are somehow such a hassle that they necessitate removing the law about being born in the country, it is twofold.

The first is that there are a number of people who don't hesitate to paint the government as monstrous for enforcing the law that was being painted as just a casual "no problem" sort of solution. There ARE efforts being made to introduce exceptions in for parents of children born here, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

The second is that the children are costing state funds from birth. And, even further, that they DO often stay behind even when the parents are forced to leave, and continue to draw state funds. Almost always, the parents come back, no problem. But even if they don't, the kid often remains.

As to the "name a dozen" challenge - well, that's just stupid. Aside from the impossibility of "naming" anything here: the press conferences? the families? the babies? - anyone with even the slightest familiarity with the situation in a state bordering Mexico is well aware of the situation. Immigration is not, hard as it may be to believe, an issue because "whitey fears change." It's an issue because it has serious financial and governmental issues for states along the border.

[Chris S.]

I reiterate, I LIVED this. Several of my friends in school lived with relatives under this scenario. This didn't make them bad people, bad citizens, or drains on societies. It DID, however, encourage the idea that if your parent could just make it over the border to give birth to you, your problems were solved. Which is the initial comment that was so laughably dismissed that is, in fact, a SERIOUS problem.

[VM]

I'm sorry Rhywun.

[Andy]

While this seems to indicate the problem has been cleared up, it does certainly validate my memories, and frankly, considering the source, I question how much this has changed.

http://democraciausa.org/en/headlines/120706en3/

Q: Can't parents argue that they shouldn't be deported because their American children need them here?

Before the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, if undocumented parents could prove to a judge that their deportation would hurt a U.S. citizen family member, the judge could let them stay.

But the act made deportation automatic. Capps said that change added tens of thousands of deportations per year.

The number of deportations jumped from about 40,000 a year in the mid-'90s to 204,000 in 2005.

[highnumber]

...refusing to acknowledge a difference in place of birth (i.e. citizenship) is essentially refusing to accept the concept of a state. This means you're an anarchist.

Not necessarily. Opening borders to allow free movement does not equal granting citizenship. Many minarchists want open borders that workers and goods are allowed to pass through without the gov't interfering.

[Andy]

highnumber,

Yes, agreed, apologies if that is unclear. My point was intended to be that refusing to allow for a line to be drawn somewhere for citizenship equates to anarchy.

[NH]

Ron was well-received here in NH where they raised thousands of dollars for him at a reception. We are mounting a huge internet campaign.

Please see ronpaulexplore.com for details.

[Some James]

Those numbers are basically the opposite of what I've heard, Andy. Unless you're talking about that specific type of deportation. It was my understanding that immigrant deporting was much higher under Clinton than Bush II. Facetious point: how much more have US taxpayers been burdened by deporting those people (ie, maintaining the bureaucracy for doing so, dealing with appeals, etc) than they would have paid if the immigrants stayed here? Almost certainly more, even before taking into account the fact that illegal immigrants would contribute to taxes. Sales taxes are pretty unavoidable, and income tax would get withheld, typically using a made up SSN, plus the immigrant would be unable to get a refund.

Another point: switching away from birthright citizenship is bad for the country in terms of community and national security. If the law makes it more difficult for people to become citizens and integrate, they have no incentive to, especially if there's not the additional draw of an immigrant's children becoming citizens. This would lead to an increase in stratified, ethnocentric ghettos (already a problem) and we begin to see situations like we see in Europe, where immigrant and immigrant descended communities feel separate from the society as a whole (none of this is to excuse those who take that estrangement to an extreme, of course).

[highnumber]

Regarding so-called anchor babies, I have a question:
Are children automatically granted citizenship by their parents' home nation?
Specifically, are the children born in the US of Mexican citizen parents automatically granted Mexican citizenship?

[Chris S.]

An interesting read here on "Birthright Citizenship in America". The quotes from the 14th Amendment's ratification debate (giving original intent) are fascinating, look also to the SCOTUS decisions that give precedent for Constitutional interpretation.

Actually, that's a totally worthless article, as is often the case with Wikipedia entries. Congressional floor statements are mostly self-serving and contradictory, and we have no evidence that these particular statements carried any weight. They most certainly carried no weight in the state ratification process (remember, this was an Amendment, not legislation), and the text of the amendment makes clear that any proposed narrowing of the terms "persons" or "jurisdiction" were rejected before the amendment was passed.

The entry writer's comments re: Plyler v. Doe are completely inaccurate. Plyler had nothing to do with children born in the U.S. -- that case involved foreign born children of illegal immigrants. And the case had absolutely nothing to do with the naturalization clause; it involved an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Anyway, such are the perils of reading Wikipedia. Sometimes it's total crap.

[highnumber]

Andy,
Fair enough.

[Chris S.]

Andy, that isn't a press conference; it's just a brief summary of immigration law. It really doesn't validate your memories.

The statements you cite refer to the "extreme hardship" standard I was discussing before and to a now defunct process called "Suspension of Deportation." Immigrants subject to deportation often ask for a "Cancellation of Removal," which requires ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States and a demonstration of "extreme and unusual hardship" with respect to the alien's American citizen family members (hardship upon the alien him or herself doesn't count). They used to be able to ask for a "Suspension of Deportation," which was also extremely hard to get, but slightly easier (I think this was ended in 1996).

Believe me, immigrants don't get released after press conferences. And it's very unusual to see an alien get a Cancellation of Removal. There are no exceptions to the ten year minimum requirement, and the "extreme hardship" standard is pretty severe. No pregnant woman hopping the fence and running across the desert could ever count on a Cancellation of Removal-it would be like robbing a bank under the assumption that you'll get a presidential or gubernatorial pardon.

[Chris S.]

Regarding so-called anchor babies, I have a question:
Are children automatically granted citizenship by their parents' home nation?
Specifically, are the children born in the US of Mexican citizen parents automatically granted Mexican citizenship?

That depends entirely upon the laws of Mexico. I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Most countries grant citizenship to children of citizens regardless of where they're born. Were you thinking about the possibility of stateless people (if the U.S. didn't grant them citizenship and if Mexico didn't grant them citizenship...)? Such people do exist, but it's usually due to some form of exile from their home country.

[Andy]

Chris S.,

I am fairly certain that I am referring to discussions held on the courtroom steps in front of the media. I will cheerfully concede that no "press conferences" were called, for whatever that means. My point remains intact. I would say an official policy saying that being forced out of the country would be a hardship on an American citizen baby, which allowed for a trial, and then for the immigrant to say, is pretty much EXACTLY what I was talking about. I'm not even sure how you think you're slicing the semantics so that it's not.

Regardless, your intimidating sounding description of a "cancellation of removal" notwithstanding, any illegal immigrant with a child in the United States would be hard pressed to LOSE the argument that a deportation of their parent isn't an extreme hardship for their children. The 10 year standard does change things somewhat, but honestly, not much. It still encourages sneaking into the country to have your baby. Chances of you and it becoming American citizens otherwise, zero. Chances under your scenario, higher.

And all this is is assuming the extreme unlikelihood of you ever getting caught. Look, I'm not arguing for the revoking of automatic citizenship for those born here (necessarily). What I AM is tired of people who act as though any argument for stricter control of immigration is inherently racist, unintelligent, or reactionary. Reading through your comments, you lead constantly with "you don't understand" or "thanks for the laugh" or call my comments, for example, an "immigration fantasy", maintaining a totally unwarranted arrogance and tossing off blanket dismissals that are, at best, uninformed. But maybe it's not that you're being rude because you are completely incapable of seeing the other side of the argument, maybe it's just because you're rude. In which case, I take all of that back.

But the fact remains, you claimed that none of "this" would ever happpen.

(Quoted section: A pregnant Mexican runs across the border has their baby in America and then gets to stay here because their baby was born in America. Now, the welfare state pays for the hospital bill, and also for the illegal Mom and Dad to live here. The welfare state is the problem.

The other way to look at this is we are rewarding the pregnant Mexican for running across the border to have their baby. They see this as an easy way to live in America, and also have hopefully a better life for their child. If running across the border wouldn't get them either of these benifits because their child isn't a citizen and they can't live here, they would not be enticed to do such things. [sic])

So far, we've seen that there IS a clear and obvious argument that running across the border provides tangible benefits for the birth of the child, the raising of the child, your chances to become an American, the child's chances of becoming an American, and (for some) enjoying the benefits the welfare state has to offer. Do they see it as an "easy way to live in America" - obviously easier than applying for citizenship the legal way, or they'd do that. Does the welfare state provide an incentive for some people to cross over? Absolutely, and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. And I could go on. But rather than discussing or considering any of this, you dismiss the poster as lacking knowledge, unrealistic, and so forth. And then make an even MORE egregious and unrealistic assumption by blanket-declaring that a mother will take the baby back with her. Granted, there are dozens of ways you could argue for solving those problems that DON'T involve cutting off citizenship by birth, but you don't attempt to make that point. You just deny that there could be a problem.

[Andy]

Somejames,

I believe those increases would have occurred during the second Clinton administration - it is totally possible (and I think, true, though I haven't done the leg work) that deportations have increased under Bush. I completely and totally understand your point regarding the cost of deportation and maintenance of the system versus the cost of "illegal" immigration, and am obviously sympathetic to it. However, an alternative policy of "come one, come all" is just too much for me (in terms of the edge towards anarchism, as discussed above), and, in my opinion, places an unfair burden on those states near borders. And yes, many immigrants pay taxes, though I would be careful with the assertion that it's almost certainly more than they cost.

(Center for Immigration Studies delivers this factoid here, but I have no idea as to their reputability, nor do I doubt other sources have different numbers: http://www.cis.org/articles/index.html
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.)

Your Europe parallel is, I think, especially fascinating because of what we've seen in the last few years. The rapid aging of the European population is leaving many formerly strongly anti-immigrant countries desperate for young blood, but their famously anti-immigrant stances have left them unable to attract many of what could be called "attractive" groups of immigrants. Of course, the development of these "ghettos" and anti-government feelings do sometimes occur even under the current system. (Though some immigrants are, certainly, famously pro-America. "Fanaticism of the convert" or some such phenomenon.)

[Dmitri]

How does one remedy the problem of illegals running across the border if we do not revoke birthright citizenship?

I think we would all agree a fence, more government control, more paperwork, or any other expansion of the federal government won't do the job according to the federal government track record.

Would ridding us of the Nanny state (welfare, social security, etc.) be sufficient?

[Andy]

A few typos to correct:

In my post to Somejames: I meant - it is totally possible that deportations have DEcreased under Bush

In my post to Chris S.: I meant - and then for the immigrant to sTay, not "say"
_________________________________

To Dmitri,

I agree, it is a bit puzzling. I think an argument could be made that it's hard to know if some form of increased enforcement would work, because it's been so long since there was any real commitment to enforcement at all. But if we do concede that we don't have the skill or the will to keep that up... hmmmm...

As to firing the Nannny state, I'm not sure it SOLVES the problem, people still want into the States for the job opportunities, but does it give a lot less reason for the average middle-of-the-road armchair wonk to complain? Probably. Even if we assume emergency medical care is still available to immigrants (and citizens), I don't know if that enough cause to really get riled up. I suppose you've got the Lou Dobbs Concern - that it puts pressure on the Middle Class by flooring wages and so on, but I'm not sure you'll find a lot of sympathy to that argument here. It's definitely worth some thought.

[Some James]

Andy,

The trouble with any study of whether illegal immigrants take more tax dollars than they put in is probably going to be flawed due to the biases of those doing the study and the fact that they aren't exactly looking to be found to participate in any studies. Plus it's very linear thinking that would only look at those two things, their employment and participation in commerce would add to the economy too. Still, I suspect that the contribution is more than they take, you think otherwise, and it would probably take more than a study from a group with a clear political agenda to make us rethink our intuitions.

Naturalization and citizenship policies are indicative of how a country views itself. If the policies are based on descendance, bloodlines and all that, then citizenship tends to be very ethnically based. I think that naturalized birth protects against this and allows a more civic-based conception of American-ness. I know you're not advocating getting rid of the naturalization process, but I think changing the Constitution or interpretation of it could push the concept of US citizenship away from this. Plus immigrants and children of 2nd generation immigrants are really the only reason that the US hasn't dropped to Europe-like birthrates.

Also, regarding "anchor babies", do you know of any statistics of how prevalent this is? I can't really imagine a very pregnant woman making the increasingly dangerous trek over the river, through the desert or wherever to do this. I'm sure some probably do, but is the number significant enough to even be considered?

[Chris S.]

Andy,

I'm not going to put on kid gloves when I don't think you have your facts straight. I'm sorry. It requires absolutely no semantic slicing for me to argue that your "tearful" "press conference" scenario wasn't based on any empirical evidence. This is, in fact, an "immigration fantasy," and I don't care if that offends you. If you want to talk about administrative hearings, fine, let's talk about administrative hearings. Define your terms, and you won't have to get offended when you're wrong.

As far as statistics for administrative hearings are concerned, the most Cancellations of Removal granted in a single year was 2,345. See http://feinstein.senate.gov/04Releases/r-hutchinson-ltr-removal.htm. Most years are lower (around 1,000), and the absolute cap on Cancellations of Removal is 4000. In 2005, 1,291,000 foreign nationals were apprehended. 238,000 were detained, 208,521 were formally removed, and 965,000 were forced to accept "voluntary departure." http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2005/Enforcement_AR_05.pdf. Are people really going to rely on a safe haven provision that affects about 1/1000 of the aliens apprehended every year. Aliens are about 200 times more likely to get tossed into crude detainment facilities, often without any clear understanding of when they'll get released or if they'll get released. Are pregnant women counting on this? They're undoubtedly hoping that they won't get caught rather than dreaming about an obscure provision in the immigration code that affects almost no one and only takes effect after ten years of illegal residence. Yes, people who think this creates a meaningful immigration loophole are totally clueless about immigration law and policy.

As far as people coming into this country and hoping not to get caught, the low enforcement rate of our immigration laws coupled with employment opportunities do create incentives to break our immigration laws. I won't call you a racist or ignorant on that account, but the "anchor babies" bit is a red herring.

[Andy]

Chris S.

I'm going to repeat this once, slowly. The following scenario occurs. Media interviews crying immigrant mother holding baby, mother cries about not wanting to be separated from baby, mother gets hearing, mother stays in country. This happens. You admit it, I argue for it, and anyone with the slightest modicum of intelligence would have figured that out by now. It has nothing to do with being offended about being, it's that you have been conclusively wrong about every single argument you've condescendingly made, but blithely keep on rolling.

I've got to finish a project up here, and then head home from work, so I will address the worthwhile parts of both posts when I get a chance. If it's worth it to you to continue the conversation, I look forward to speaking to you (At least somejames) later tonight or tomorrow.

Though somejames, again, I am going to through out a quick anecdotal fact. My mother is a special education teacher in Arizona, and has a number of children with severe mental and physical disabilities who are illegal - their parents carried them through the desert to get them to the States. A pregnant woman, of course, is in some ways, a different story, but I think the message is the same.

[Dmitri]

According to one of the articles posted in this thread between 300,000 and 350,000 Achor Babies annualy become citizens. This is a Red Herring?
Please, enough dismissal and more actual points on the topic.

Some James:
I sympathize with your points. This is a good argument, and if enforcement of immigration worked I would agree entirely but...

I don't agree with enforcing or making more laws either, and I am fairly certain a you would sympathize. Making more laws and stricter enforcement mostly means loss of liberty. Would police ask us if we could prove citizenship? What's enforcement going to cost us as compared to letting this happen?

[Eric Dondero]

Libertarians now officially on record in support of Rudy Giuliani for President:

Dennis Miller
Fmr. CA Gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon
California Congressman David Dreier
California State Senator Ken Pachoogian
California Assemblyman Mark Villines

Media outlets that have called Giuliani a "libertarian" or a "libertarian conservative" within the last few weeks:

London Times-Herald
New York Sun
Jonah Goldberg of National Review Magazine
Insight Magazine
Emmett Tyrell of American Spectator

And in the past:

The New York Times who referred to Rudy Giuliani as a "Budget cutting, privatizing Ayn Randian."

Now Franklin Harris and other doubters. Can all these individuals and media outlets be wrong?

[Andy]

Chris S.,

Also, if press is for some reason what you are hung up on, here are the first two national examples that pop up with a quick google search.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/nyregion/24deport.html?ex=1259038800&en=08ff19121a752b02&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-14-arellano_x.htm

I loved how you casually avoided responding to the fact that you have made by far the least empirical, least informed, and least accurate comment in this entire discussion, but did manage to find time to explain how much you hate people who "don't have their facts straight." Great work.

Second of all, my argument was NEVER about how common this phenomenon is, and you've for some reason latched onto that. Most importantly, it happens, which was my original point, so we can just move on from there, whether you get that or not. Second, I repeat again, you say "do you think people cling to that 1/1000 chance?" I say yes, of course they do. Because it's significantly higher than it would be otherwise. And even if it FAILS, and they don't get to stay, their child can stay with full priveledges of an American citizen. So they STILL benefit. And yes, of course they also hope they don't get caught. The point isn't whether the numbers are meaningful (which, by the way, word of 2,000+ success stories floating around back home a year, every year, is pretty darn meaningful from an opinion making standpoint) the point is whether it can be seen as a reasonable source of confusion. Perhaps your argument shows that it's unlikely, but a) when compared to no chance, and b) when casually considered by a desperate immigrant, it obviously has some appeal.

And of course, you totally failed to address the fact that a cursory glance at the post you dismissed as something that would never happen is, in fact, for the most part, reasonable, logical stuff. No one here is arguing that a parent who has a child in the states becomes an automatic citizen. What I AM saying is that there are serious and obvious motivations to cross into the country as a pregant mother, and we should have a serious conversation as a country about whether that's something we want, and how we should deal with it.

I look forward to seeing your response to Dmitri.

[highnumber]

Eric Dondero,
Short answer: Yes

[jf]

Mr. Dondero,

AstroTurf much?

[jf]

That is to say (since my pithy little comment left a bit to be desired) that you are trying to claim a base of support among libertarians for Giuliani where it is completely impossible to believe it exists. Cherry-pick all you want among self-described libertarians, but appealing to authority is still a logical fallacy last time I checked.

[Andy]

Somejames,

Agreed - though I wouldn't say that I necessarily think immigrants cost more than they bring in, I honestly haven't done even a fraction of the research I'd need to do to form an opinion. I think it even goes beyond concerns of whether the source is biased or not, and the fact that you can take ripple effects, both positive and negative, out to eternity.

To some extent, I understand your argument that citizenship as birth protects against an ethnic mentality, but I'm not sure that's the total answer here. The choices, of course, are not illegal immigration or no immigration. Or even illegal immigration and ethnic-based immigration. One can still accept immigrants and, of course, allow their children to be automatic citizens. Now there are some real questions to be answered about whether legal American immigration is really a fair process, but that's a debate that should also be had, not to the exclusion of this one. I think that immigration is a central tenant of American life, and that your ethnic worries mistake the core of American concerns about illegal immigration. The line, at least in my opinion, hasn't ever focused on "latinos" versus "whites" (with, of course, some unfortunate exceptions). It focuses on "Americans" versus "non-Americans" and, while some have problems with it, I think the majority of Americans are more than willing to accept immigrants who play by the rules. In fact, I think its a point of American pride to be open that.

In terms of pregnant women making the dangerous trek, I think it's way more prevalent than one would think. I know it's not ideal, but I can offer anectdotal evidence from my time in the Southwest. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, people with far more challenging conditions make the trek - in many cases because the reward is so much greater. I haven't been able to find an estimate - I welcome a link from anyone who can find one. When I'm at work tomorrow I'll try to hit up some more exhaustive search engines.

[Rick Barton]

Good points nicely articulated. He's got my support. But what is this about an end to birthright citizenship? Is that actually his position?

[Franklin Harris]

Now Franklin Harris and other doubters. Can all these individuals and media outlets be wrong?

Neoconservative opinion magazines and the New York Times? Hardly good sources for determining who is or isn't a libertarian.

Really, this is getting absurd. Just admit that you want the president who will drop the most bombs on people and stop trying to label the guy who "cleaned up" Times Square a libertarian. You could make just as convincing case (i.e., not at all convincing) that Joe Lieberman is a libertarian. It's no wonder Sean Hannity loves them both.

[CLS]

I'm keeping that on the computer. I've started watching it four times and found he put me straight to sleep in nothing flat. I don't agree with his immigration crap or his populist economics regarding banking or his conspiracy theories. But surely he could sound interesting on something. If he gets in a debate and gives answers like this he'll lose the audience in 30 seconds. Anyway, it's late. Need to sleep. Where's that Ron Paul interview again.

[NH]

They loved Ron in NH. If you can get 150 people to raise $14,000 in two hours, just think what we can do next!

Ron's the only candidate worth voting for.

[JohnJacksonIII]

WTF reason comment form blank bullshit

[JohnJacksonIII]

I was just wondering, if Ron Paul is a libertarian who opposes illegal immigration, why aren't Tom Tancredo, Lou Dobbs,The Minutemen, etc- considered libertarians?

[Stevo Darkly]

All functioning states are welfare states, haven't you noticed? For some reason nobody wants to live in the ones that aren't.

Hong Kong?

(Technically not an independent state, but when run pretty much as one, with laissez faire policies and not much of a welfare state, plenty of people risked death to flee there.)

[biologist]

@ CLS:

you're right. thanks for reminding us that what the electorate really wants is a dog and pony show, not a rational policy debate on the issues.

[Gray Ghost]

I'd not seen Rep. Paul on t.v. before this clip. He's not very good on television, but he's nowhere near as awful as the comments would have you believe.

The highlight of the clip for me was the incredulity of the newscaster around the 2:00-ish mark of the clip, at Paul's statement that government was too large. It brought home the observation from a commenter in another thread of the distinction between journalists' dislike of a facet of government vs their embrace of government itself.

I'm torn on his immigration stance. A state has a right to secure its borders. And until reading the comments from Chris S., I was totally on board with restricting birthright citizenship. Now, I'm not sure. It seems like a bad idea.

I'm also not sure about what is to be done about illegal immigration. In that, I'm hardly alone. What I am sure of is that Ron Paul's the most libertarian candidate we've seen from a major party in a very long time. Giuliani, by comparison, embodies the comment, "Power corrupts. And absolute power is really neat."

Oh, and as a formerly giant fan of Dennis Miller (somewhere I have boxes of video tapes of his non-cable late night talk show), Dennis hasn't been a libertarian since 9/11. And he's never been one when it came to the 2nd Amendment. I'm not sure if it's having kids that did it (similar to what I think has taken a few MPH off of P.J. O'Rourke's fastball) or if he's got a case of "The Islamists are coming! The Islamists are coming!", but he's definitely lost something in these last six years.

Of course, that's my opinion...(you know the rest)

Enjoy the Paul campaign while it lasts.

[HippyChimp]

Eric Dondero loves him some Rudy, doesn't he. Does Reason? Erics website claims "Other Mainstream libertarian groups include the Cato Institute in Washington, DC, Americans for Tax Reform, and Reason Magazine based in Los Angeles." Does this imply that Reason supports his supporting Giuliani?

Get your statism out of my libertarianism, Eric! And get a clue while you're at it!

HippyChimp

[Eric Dondero]

I have a better idea Chimp, or should I call you Chump. How 'bout getting your non-libertarian Islamo-Fascist loving ass out of my Libertarian movement.

I've bleed, sweat and teared for this Libertarian movement for 22 years. I've got a Libertarian resume that would make your head spin, buddy.

Know where I was in November and December? Petitioning in 10 degree weather in Anchorage, Alaska for the Libertarian Party trying to Repeal the Smoking Ban on Bars and Bingo Halls.

On Election Day I stood out for 4 hours waving a sign on a major intersection in Anchorage for my friend Scott Kohlhaas, Libertarian for State House. It was 12 degrees.

Now match that!

I'm so sick and tired of these posers, mostly lazy-asses like Franklin Harris, mighty as thou, coming into my Libertarian Movement and trying to tell ME "who is and who is not really Libertarian."

Here's a Hint: He who works the hardest and sacrifices the most for the Libertarian Movement is THE MOST LIBERTARIAN. Not the person who reads every single Ayn Rand Novel, can cite every verse from Mises, and logs onto LewRockwell.com every morning.

Final Note: Latest Poll numbers -- Rudy Giuliani 53%, Ron Paul 1%.

You wanna back Ron Paul for President. Be my guest.

[Eric Dondero]

DeFacto Supporter of Islamo-Fascism = Non-Libertarian

Opponent of Islamo-Fascism = Libertarian

How anyone can call yourself a "Libertarian" yet support an ideology that is Anti-Choice, Anti-Drug Legalization, Anti-Prostitution, Anti-Woman, Pro-Slavery, and Pro-Religious Fanatic and still call themselves a "Libertarian" is beyond me?