Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Ron Paul on Immigration
By John Stossel
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Are you struggling to keep up with rising gas prices?


I'd heard that that presidential candidate Ron Paul was "hard line" on immigration and "to the right" of the Republican field. But that's not exactly what he revealed during my interview with him. Here's Part 4 of my edited interview.

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

What should we do?

Get rid of the subsidies. (If) you subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it.

Get rid of welfare?

All the welfare benefits.

Including government-paid health care?

Absolutely.

So what should a hospital do if an illegal immigrant shows up for treatment?

Be charitable, but have no mandates by the federal government. Catholics want to help a lot of these people. I'm not for (punishing anyone who wants to help voluntarily). But we wouldn't have so many (illegals) if they didn't know they were going to get amnesty. If you promise them amnesty -- medical care, free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps, and Social Security -- you're going to get more (illegal immigration). I think we could be much more generous with our immigration. (But) we don't need to reward people who get in front of the line.

We should be more generous in our legal immigration policy?

(Without the welfare state) it would be a non-issue. Today it's a big issue because people are hurting; they can't keep up with paying their bills. They see (illegals) using food stamps, in the emergency rooms, demanding bilingual education in the schools. The costs are going up. Continued...
1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(63 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 63
Date: Jan 6, 2008 - 4:06 AM EST
Subject: Dooze finishes
RP has some good ideas, but lacks persuasive tact. As a Congressman, he's not without guilt for the situation we currently find ourselves (value of the dollar market, immigration, government intrusion). He's not been very successful at communicating the state of the State, nor persuading his fellow Congressmen to see the dangers and convincing them to change their voting habits. He'd be better to stay in Congress and keep fighting, than to be stuck as a lame-duck President.

I also still have major concerns with his strict libertarian stand on foreign affairs. The issue of leaving the Iraqi standing without our help is paramount to the incredibly stupid pull-out from Vietnam from our allies, the Hmong people. Have to give it to Bush for not allowing Congress to micro-manage another war. The devestation of life would be a serious return to the last days of our Nation in Cambodia, Vietnam, and those sourrounding nations. RP's policy would be akin to the same thing, . . . just for a different reason than the Dem's! True peace may never be achieved in the ME, but we can at least have more than one ally, as opposed to none.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 62
Date: Jan 6, 2008 - 4:05 AM EST
Dave continues . . .
No other nation in the world allows "anchor babies" to be defined as Citizen's of that country of birth. Their nationality is tied to their parents, until the parents seek citizenship in any other country but their own. Why are we the only nation to permit "anchor babies" automatic Citizenship??? Even International Law, that some of the Supreme's like to cherry-pick for standing, doesn't hold-up.

Making changes to the Supreme's interp of the 14th amendment regarding Title 8 (anchor babies)is going to take YEARS before it can be reviewed. And then, even IF it get's there, be rest assured, some slip-n-fall attorney's will seek financial repatriation like they did/ continue to do for the families of many generations past slaves. It's a pandora's box. If we're smart, we'll teach our own children about the US Constitution (which Scouting does but NOT my kids school!??!?), it's values, and meaning. The majority of the rights lie inthe hands of the States OR the individual citizen's . . . NOT in the Federal Government, . . . and then just say . . NO!!

see last post . . .
Flag as Offensive
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
 *
State:
 *
Zip:
 *
Phone:
       
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.