For the record, I'm completely on board with Ron Pauls stance on immigration. Ron Paul believes that due to the welfare state, birthright citizenship for illegals and most current social programs. That incentives are created for American citizens, legal and illegal immigrants to sometimes abuse the system. With the burden already created by legal residents and citizens from the welfare state, opening up the border now would just increase this burden. So the borders must be enforced until the welfare state can be dealt with. Once the welfare state has been abolish having open borders is suddenly a definite possibility cause free market forces will have demand for the labor. Also the numbers of immigrants will be down without the incentive of government benefits, and the increased prosperity of foreign commerce from ending things like the WTO and NAFTA which hurt Mexicos and USAs agriculture.
It's been heated at the Ron Paul Forum in threads about the spanish language debate on Univision, this has upset a very small minority of Ron Paul supporters who are super anti-immigration and they've used the following arguments:
- Ron Paul shouldn't be going to events for special groups, cause that's giving them special attention
To this I say, isn't every speech and rally to a special group whether it's to a States residents, high school kids, or the local gun owners association? Plus, if this is such a problem where were all the complaints when he went to the debate @ Morgan State which had questions geared toward minority voters? How about when Ron Paul addressed the Arab American Institute in Michigan?
In all these instances Ron Paul addressed how all these issues effect all Americans and how we need solve these issues to protect individuals. Ron Paul has never tailored his message to his audience, but he's never alienated audience by not giving his time when invited. Ron Paul is willing to spread his message to those who are willing to listen, why would this be any different in the Univision debate?
- No country can have stability with multiple languages, and this debate promotes multiple US languages
With international commerce being the key to peace in non-interventionism, this statement filled me with concern. Luckily someone was quick to present this table show how most of the most prosperous nations in the world have multiple languages:
a list of the countries with the highest GDP per capita in the world:
1 Luxembourg 87,955 <- three official languages
2 Norway 72,306 <- one official language
3 Qatar 62,914 <-- one language, <-- one official language
5 Switzerland 51,771 <-- four official languages
6 Denmark 50,965 <-- one official language
7 Ireland 44,500 <-- two official languages
8 United States 44,190
9 Sweden 42,383 <-- one official language
10 Netherlands 40,571 <-- one official language
11 Finland 40,197 <-- two official languages
12 United Kingdom 39,213 <-- one official language (seven recognized regional languages)
13 Austria 38,961 <-- one official language
14 Canada 38,951 <-- two official languages
15 Belgium 37,214 <-- two official languages
another interesting thing to notice is that Switzerland has FOUR official languages, and Switzerland is one of Ron Pauls favorite examples on the type of Non-Interventionist policy he wants to practice. He even said he wouldn't mind being president of Switzerland in his interview with Google.
The point I'm trying to make is that addressing special groups on their playing field does not mean you are pandering as long as your message is consistent and honest. We are a country built on cultural cooptation, our culture assimilates to others just as much as they assimilate to ours, it's a negotiated process. We see this in the evolution of architecture, music, art, humor, and politics. Americas culture has always been continuously evolving from the cultures that participate in it. Ron Paul is for free travel and friendship with other nations, he just wants to protect our sovereignty and economy, which isn't threatened by immigrants. As Ron Paul said @ Morgan State immigrants are just a scape goat of the effects of the welfare state and international trade agreements.