Mr. Rockwell was too kind to Reason’s Nick Gillespie. In writing about Ron Paul for Pajamas Media, Gillespie managed to smear not only Ron Paul but libertarians who don’t subscribe to “open borders.”
Said Gillespie: “What space was left in my heart went out to Rep. Ron Paul, the Texas libertarian who is wrong about immigration (he’s basically against it) ….”
Since when does being opposed to “open borders” mean that one is basically against immigration? From Ron Paul’s published articles I gather the following about his views on immigration:
Dr. Paul is opposed to unrestricted immigration. He believes that the U.S. government should fight terrorism by first securing its own borders. Because he believes that true citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States, he favors an end to birthright citizenship. And because he believes that it insults legal immigrants, he does not favor amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. He is not anti-immigrant. He believes that the immigration problem fundamentally is a welfare state problem. He joins the vast majority of Americans who welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. He opposes welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants that alienate taxpayers and breed suspicion of immigrants. Dr. Paul also believes that all federal government business should be conducted in English.
So, in spite of all of the above, being against “open borders” means that Dr. Paul is “wrong about immigration.” Nick Gillespie is not only wrong on immigration, he is wrong on Ron Paul, at least when it comes to this issue.
4:30 pm on May 5, 2007
