Yesterday, John Stossel released the segment of his interview with Ron Paul that dealt with Immigration. Glenn Beck and other NeoCons are starting to attack Paul on the issue, seizing on the following:

Stossel: 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.

It was the last word, offensive, that has caused conservatives to claim that he is “soft” on the issue of illegal immigration. But had they bothered to read the next sentence in the conversation, they would have realized that Paul was more concerned with attacking the primary cause of illegal immigration: the welfare state.

Stossel: What should we do?

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

Stossel: Get rid of welfare?

Paul: All the welfare benefits.

Stossel: Including government-paid health care?

Paul: Absolutely.

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

Paul: 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.

Part of the blame for the confusion one the issue should be put squarely at the feet of John Stossel for insinuating that Paul did not draw a “hard line” on immigration. What Stossel seems to not realize is that Paul is proposing the only sound solution to the problem; a border fence will not address the root cause of illegal immigration — its a cop-out that allows conservatives to have their cake (the welfare state) and eat it too (a pacified base).

The only effective way to stymie the negative effects of illegal immigration is to end (or curtail) the welfare state. Without the welfare state, with its direct incentives to illegal immigrants and its perverse incentives to agricultural, textile, and food processing interests — boosting demand for illegal labor, the market would determine how many immigrants come to the United States, where they come from, and what skillsets they have. Immigrants who are incapable of “making it” without state assistance will go back home, as happened so frequently in 19th-Century America.

Without the welfare state, there would be no need for an immigration policy.

Read Paul’s stance on immigration here, here, here, and here.