Gitzo Loc: Indiana

Ron Paul Explains What’s Missing In The Current Immigration ‘Crisis’ Debate

July 14, 2014 by Ron Paul


Over the past several weeks we have seen a significant increase in illegal immigration, as thousands of unaccompanied minors pour across what seems an invisible southern border into the United States. The mass immigration has, as to be expected, put an enormous strain on local resources, and it has heated up the immigration debate in the U.S.

Most liberals and conservatives miss the point, however, making the same old arguments we have all heard before. Liberals argue that we need to provide more welfare and assistance to these young immigrants, while conservatives would bus them to the other side of the border, drop them off, and deploy drones to keep them out.
Neither side seems interested in considering why is this happening in the first place. The truth is, this latest crisis is a consequence of mistaken government policies on both sides of the border.

In fact much of the problem can be directly traced to the U.S. drug war, which creates unlivable conditions in countries that produce narcotics for export to the U.S. Many of those interviewed over the past several weeks have cited violent drug gangs back home as a main motivation for their departure. Because some Americans want to use drugs here in the U.S., governments to the south are bribed and bullied to crack down on local producers.

The resulting violence has destroyed economies and lives from Mexico to Nicaragua and beyond. Addressing the failed war on drugs would go a long way to solving the immigration crisis.

I understand the argument of some libertarians that there should be no limits at all on who comes into the United States, but the reality is we do not live in a libertarian society. We live in a society where healthcare is provided — often by over-burdened emergency rooms that cannot legally turn away the sick — “free” education is provided, and other support via food stamp programs is also made available for “free” to illegal immigrants. Many even argue that they should be allowed to vote!

In a free society where the warfare-welfare state ceased to exist, immigration laws would be far less important. A free market would seek workers rather than immigrants to add to its welfare rolls. Voting itself would decline in significance. If 20 people lived on a privately-owned island, for example, one owner could decide to have a guest on his property without bothering the other 19. Were we to move in this direction in the U.S., the current immigration crisis would be a thing of the past.

Over many years while I was in Congress, I met with scores of employers in my district who faced terrible red tape just to be allowed to bring in temporary agricultural workers who would willingly return home once the work was finished. How ironic that Americans willing to provide jobs for immigrants seeking honest work were thwarted by the same government that has now opened the door to a flood of immigrants seeking welfare and other assistance.

One thing we can be sure about: as Republicans and Democrats tussle over “reform” bills, more money will be thrown at the symptoms produced by past bad policies instead of addressing the real causes of the current crisis. The president’s $4 billion supplemental request to address the issue is a costly mix of welfare and enforcement that will do very little to solve the problem because it treats the symptoms instead of the cause. Real reform means changing a failed approach, and until that happens we can count on more expensive mistakes.


Comments;
I agree with Ron Paul on about half of what he says, but on the other half, I think he's completely delusional. I've often wondered what Ron Paul thinks we should do about the mountain of drugs that would be coming into this country daily if we suddenly ended the so-called "war on drugs"? Maybe he thinks we should just allow "farmers" in Florida to grow coco trees, have a pharmaceutical company manufacture the cocaine, and sell it at the "super market" like hot chocolate? That would definitely put the drug cartels out of business, over night. The only probably being, then instead of having 2 million "junkies" roaming our streets, we'd shortly have 20 million of them!

It's a thorny problem any way you look at it.

Jackinthebox Loc: travel the world

Ron Paul is cuckoo. :XD:

Gitzo Loc: Indiana

LOL; I agree with you about 50%, Jack

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

when a society does away with absolutes, it becomes wishy washy.

Violameister Loc: michigan

The same was said about repeal of prohibition when it was in effect. While I agree that drug use will probably go up some with decriminalization, it will almost certainly not go up 10 fold. On the other hand, users and addicts will no longer resort to crime to support their habit because the drugs will be cheap and pure.
Back in the days of the 19th century when opium use was widespread and legal, lots of productive, creative people were users and even addicts. Face it, nicotine is a psychoactive substance that is seriously addicting; not everyone is a nicotine addict, and nicotine addicts are generally fully functioning members of society. I think the bottom line of "more drug users but a greater percentage of them are fully functional and healthy" is a net positive for society. And that is without factoring in ending of drug cartel violence.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

Excellent. Illegality of anything makes the price rise. Legality will not make the usage rise substantially as those that wish to use are using legal or not.

RedAdmiral Loc: Humboldt County, California

I am not a drug user, nor do I think drug use is a good thing, for individuals or society. However, I've often said, we had a "War on Drugs." We lost, time to run up the white flag and move on. Yes, people are fools, they will destroy their lives, but that too is their right. Will society crumble? Probably not, but the current methodology has bred so many unexpected consequences we're going to have to change something or perish where we stand.

Bruno2013 Loc: Fort Myers, Florida

-- I am a progressive (and non-drug user) who agrees we have lost the war on drugs (but does not agree with some of Mr Paul's assertions). The antithesis of a war on drugs is not to liberalize drugs for common sale to any and all. Rather, society and government need to recognize the use of drugs as solely health and social issues.

-- A former Mayor of Baltimore espoused a program which former Secretary of State Shultz endorsed in large part. That program foresaw the legal sale of drugs, but required their use and consumption at the point of sale: namely, inside a government (or possibly commercially run) medical-health dispensary where licensed medical staff would supervise the consumption of the drugs. Such centers would drastically undercut the high cost of drugs (a national insurance report of 20-plus years ago claimed something like 60% of the crime in NYC was drug related) and would remove much of the violence drug sales create in many parts of America. A fraction of the costs saved from dispensing with DEA and other anti-drug institutions would be used to sponsor through scholarships students who enter medical schools and agree to work their first five years after graduation in an assigned medical-health drug dispensary.

-- I doubt a program like this would be fool proof, and it might lead those seeking the latest drug to turn to chemists producing the latest adventure drug. Some drugs would likely get ‘lost.’ But if only marginally successful it would become a program that would cost American society far less in deaths, shootings of innocent bystanders, wasted lives and taxes than the bloated, failed bureaucratic approach that began under Nixon and seems to have growth with every administration. Its creation could go far to diminish the power of the drug cartels, and consequently remove much of the violence the cartels bring to the homelands of the children seeking a peaceful life in the USA

Violameister Loc: michigan

I, too, am a non user; I think there is merit in your proposal, and compromise positions can probably be found.

For example, I favor governmental (or other strictly regulated source) provision of such drugs, cheaply and with proper purity and strength. Also they need to be easily enough accessible to not provide an incentive to seek drugs from illicit sources.

On the other hand, I see no merit to requiring their use at the facility. Any restriction on place of use will encourage users to buy illicitly. If a user is gainfully employed in a non hazardous job, I see no reason why he needs to interrupt his work day and cannot use his drugs there or anyplace else. His employer can decide if he is productive enough. I think it important to interfere as little as possible with activities of everyday life to not discourage users from using the regulated sources of drugs and going to the black market.

So: regulated easy to access dispensaries--Yes! Regulated places to use the drugs--No!

Bruno2013 Loc: Fort Myers, Florida

Allowing use or consumption of drugs outside the dispensary could lead to resell of drugs to people who, for whatever reason, do not want to be linked to drugs.

Violameister Loc: michigan

Perhaps. I don't see that as a big issue. The profitability from selling single user quantities of drugs that are readily available cheaply is very small, so there is little incentive to sell. And if criminality of use is eliminated, there is little incentive to hide. I submit, given the speed with which our society has accepted being gay and acknowledgment of being gay has become commonplace after having to be deeply in the closet for decades, acknowledging drug use will also become as commonplace as acknowledging alcohol or nicotine use is today.

note: this is not intended as an anti-gay statement, only as an example of a situation that was very hidden not so long ago and is now commonly acknowledged.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

that's going to be fun for the person taking 6-10 different drugs all through the day.