Please see “If You Like The Surveillance State, You’ll Love E-Verify” by Ron Paul
It seems to us that Ron Paul, as a practicing physician, has not lived in the real world like the rest of us. His argument in the past has been that if all the social welfare costs were done away with and free market forces used in the job market there would be no need for E-Verify. OK. That seems logical. But on a practical level is it possible?
Employers regularly disregard IRCA 1986. In its place they get all the cheap “illegal” labor they want from outside the United States, and not just the uneducated variety. There is NO interior enforcement and there are NO employer sanctions for breaking the hiring laws as spelled out in IRCA 1986. Ron Paul’s position seems very strange as one who says he supports the rule of law. In its place we have a large growing population of social welfare recipients that are continually granted extended benefits, largely funded by working people that DO work within the law. Employers prefer illegal labor as previously explained.
We should all be for taking the government out of our lives, as represented by the NSA’s acquisition of our electronic communications. But what solution does Ron Paul offer that will do this and still protect legal workers from undue foreign competition in a way that is doable? It seems much of the driving force bringing people to the United States is US foreign policy that is supportive of corruption in many Latin American governments. One example is Eric Holder’s “Fast & Furious” operation whose real intent was to disarm Americans in an attack on the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.
Can anyone please explain Ron Paul’s position in a supportive sort of way? Even if Ron Paul doesn’t have the answers and you feel you do, give us your opinion. Would Ron Paul support the Eisenhower strategy of busing illegal aliens back across the border in a huge roundup and actually putting employers in jail?
Ron Paul is a strict "Constitutionalist" Does the Constitution say anything (offer legal authority) about the government providing retirement benefits, medical benefits, or welfare benefits? The underfunded social security system, medicare, and medicaid systems to the tune of over $120 trillion dollars is what....a good thing? Do welfare systems that offer free support systems to unwed mothers discourage more fatherless babies entering the growing ghetto's in America? Did our founding fathers ever envision a Federal system that attempts to financially take care of citizens who do nothing more than hold out their hands for handouts?
Ron Paul vigorously opposes U.S. military adventurism abroad and the costs associated with the industrial military complex. We've been in Afghanistan for 11 years and we are losing that war. We "occupied" Iraq for 11 years and never had control over Baghdad. And at what cost? We have military bases in over 100 countries, pay rent on those bases to those countries we "protect"....and just where in the Constitution is there a provision to project the U.S. as the number one world power?
Many people can disagree with Ron Paul's vision of what our government's function should be in this country. But I doubt that the founding fathers would have much quarrel with his views. And as for those who proclaim that this country has come a long way over the last 200 years and who then suggest this country has a moral duty to provide for the weaker members of society....I simply would respond, if you can't pay for it, then don't put the tab on my children's shoulders. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. (Paul would support a constitutional amendment to prohibit deficit spending)
So are all of Ron Paul's viewpoints correct and for the best. Ahhhhh, politics are what makes this world go round and everyone has a different take on most things. GLTA
“Ron Paul is a strict "Constitutionalist" Does the Constitution say anything (offer legal authority) about the government providing retirement benefits, medical benefits, or welfare benefits? …”
Paul’s views there are correct, as we are facing a government that is continually trying to find more ways to disregard the US Constitution. But the piece referenced by Paul intimates that we should NOT have border security. That is obviously debilitating to those who reside in the US legally. Paul also indicates that a wall across our southern border has much in common with the Berlin Wall. Agreed. The way things are headed we could well be facing a future where many could have a legitimate reason to escape, such as the ongoing saga of Edward Snowden.
Should employers be putting legal employees in the unemployment line in favor of illegal aliens that are wage slaves bereft of the benefits company policy states will be extended to their employees? Many companies suggest to their illegal workers how they can take advantage of the social welfare system in downturns in order to have them available to bring back into the company at a later date. This adds to deficits. It seems that our laws regarding employer sanctions, which Paul argues against, are the only measure that provides some protection to those who abide by the rules. Many companies retain supervisory personnel that act as “coyotes” that can bring in illegal workers on an as needed basis, displacing legal applicants that should be taken off the unemployment rolls.
Those with a voice in government are corporations that want business as usual allowing access to illegal labor. Paul’s arguments align with that of big business that opposes any effort to stem the flow of illegal labor.
What does defining Paul as a “Constitutionalist” mean as far as the employment environment is concerned? This has NOTHING to do with what the government provides, but what corporations do in order to evade the law.
I liken the good Dr. Paul to that of a reincarnate Thomas Jefferson.
Although the media has been loathe to say as much, Ol' Ron has has a five fold better grip on the country's and some workable solutions, But they know he undermines the fraudulent nature of things and they, or rather their controllers, can't possibly allow America to be healed and become free again. She'd be a thorn in the sides of the globalists again for at least another 100 years otherwise.
There's n0 fixing this mess, however. The American people lack courage and gumption. Seen what the Germans have been doing about the overreach of American spying? There's no real indication that too many Americans are that incensed.