Immigration, the Republican Candidates for President, and Ron Paul

I watched the Republican presidential debate on ABC, and was struck by how most of the candidates lack any grip on reality with regard to immigration (except, of course, for Ron Paul).

A substantial dispute was what to do about the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country. The extreme view is that all 12 million should be deported immediately. Anyone who thinks that has absolutely no clue what's going on. I had a client who was caught bringing an illegal into the country. After serving his time, my client wanted to be deported back to Canada. The frontline immigration people wanted him sent back. I'm pretty sure the judge who sentenced him to time-served wanted him sent back.

It took about two months to get him sent back, and the cost of keeping him in jail was around $10K. I'd estimate the total cost of this process at around $20K. Imagine how long it would take and how much it would cost if he had actually fought deportation. Now imagine that 12 million people fight deportation. That's assuming there's only 12 million. I've seen estimates as high as 30 million illegals living in the US.

So we're really talking about $1 trillion to do this, and it would take years. During the decade or two that it takes, other illegals will surely sneak into the country.

One of the sillier things I heard was a few of the candidates saying that we should only deport the estimated 2 million who have been convicted of crimes. First of all, anyone who is convicted in federal court is already deported, through the process I mentioned above.

Those convicted in state courts are generally not deported. State courts are not in the business of determining whether someone is an illegal immigrant, or what to do about it. I'm pretty sure it does happen with most felony convictions, because that kind of review would take place before sentencing. Most crimes are not felonies, and most criminal courts that I've seen would not bother going through the review necessary to even find out if someone is an illegal immigrant. The courts are just too busy with all these speeding tickets, DWIs, drug cases, and also the real crimes that they should be handling.

Ron Paul was the only dose of reality on the stage, mentioning something about the bureaucracy that the others would have to create in order to carry out their idiotic plans (he didn't use the word idiotic though - he's got more class than me).

For those who want to read more about immigration on this blog, check out my previous posts about wasting money on immigration and immigration and homeland security.

More about Ron Paul

I was responding to an e-mail discussion within my family about Ron Paul and figured most of what I wrote would make a good post about why I support him. So ...

For any of us looking at any candidate, there will always be issues with which we disagree. The difference between Ron Paul and most others is that he doesn't hide the positions he thinks others might not like. He is the real Straight Talker.

And his views actually have an intellectual root to them. Some Republicans used to believe in states' rights. Thus, the Republican position on abortion was that the federal government should stay out of it, and let the states have their own rules. Then the Republicans got power, and they tried, and keep trying, to make federal prohibitions on abortion. I'm pretty sure Paul stands by the old position (I saw him talking about this) and votes against federal regulation of abortion - even though he personally believes abortion should be illegal.

Of course, I disagree with him myself on this issue, and believe abortion is, and should remain, a part of the constitutional right to privacy. Interesting - if you check out his interest group ratings on vote-smart.org: http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BC031929
He gets widely varying ratings from NARAL and the right-to-life groups. In 2005 he actually got a 75/100 rating from NARAL, but in 2003 he got a zero.

The big thing about Ron Paul is his belief in a small federal government. For more than a decade he has been consistent on this issue, basically the lone dissenter from the Republicrat/Demolican expansion of the federal government into everything it can get its hands on.

This view - that federal government should be much smaller than it is today - is at the core of Ron Paul and his campaign. He would describe it as returning the federal government to the role it is limited to by the Constitution. And this core view is the thing about Paul that Steve [my brother] and I really believe in. We may disagree with him on an issue here, or an issue there, but this fundamental issue is something that really motivates us.

One issue that might motivate you, however, is that Ron Paul opposed the Iraq war from the beginning - unlike John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, etc. Consider, for example, his recent speech (it's short): http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr041707.htm

And you can see his original opposition statement in December of 2001:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul7.html
and his further statement in 2002:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul58.html

Ron Paul has been the most consistent, and the most outspoken, opponent of this war. Compare him to any other presidential candidate, and just about any politician at a national level, and you will find him far and away the closest to the position we all share on Iraq. We opposed it from the beginning, and have consistently opposed it throughout. Ron Paul is the only one who has consistently agreed with us on this. He also opposed the Patriot Act from the beginning, by the way. And on my pet issue, he has also consistently opposed the drug war- for example: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul4.html

My political prediction (okay, it's just a guess), is that Paul will focus on one or two early primary states, and probably just NH. He will not get much press coverage but he'll get his message out. McCain, Giuliani and Romney will split the mainstream Republican vote (the people who vote Republican because they're Republican and don't even remember why they're Republican), and Paul will win the rest. He might just win NH, or maybe come in #2, and then he'll finally get national media attention. If he is able to get national media attention on his opposition to the Iraq war, and if - a big IF - he can stay focused on that issue and not allow himself to digress and talk about all the 100 ways he's different from everyone else, he will become the leading candidate among anti-war Republicans. That would make him a contender.

An early endorsement for President in 2008

I was pleased to see that Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, is running for President. When Alan Chartock interviewed me he kept saying how I didn't sound like a Republican and asked me to name a Republican politician that I support. Ron Paul was the first and only name I mentioned.

Ron Paul would make a great president. I don't agree with him on every issue, but I do agree with him on quite a bit. Mostly, I appreciate his willingness to say unpopular things and stand up to whoever, including his own party and the President.

His brand spanking new website is: Ron Paul for President - 2008.