Well said, left has become nay sayer for any movements that might in any way or form curn the ambitions of Israeli Zionists.

Anti immigrants conveniently ignore these contributions and complain why the immigrants are using resources such as education and health system in this country. unfortunately for them it would be too embarrassing to ask the workers to sacrifice their youth and life for services and not have any health or education for their family, that would be apartheid.

So the argument would be if the American are ready to share their resources between their own in an equal way (since the US born worker with legal rights is less likely to submit for inhuman working conditions, not that this was not tried, look at New Orleans after Katrina that government was trying to lower the minimum wage) than having the immigrants do the low jobs for them. In that case the issue of immigrants to their country could have any practical meaning (from point of born citizens).

The other side of argument (which the Democratic party followers mostly lean toward is to let the illegal immigrants continue to work in the current condition and not to harass them . This argument in surface appears to be humanistic but in reality perpetuates the capitalistic system of abuse and the inhumane status que.

The only meaningful solution is to provide amnesty to all the illegal immigrants thus far in US with equal rights as a citizen, subject the US corporations working outside the US to the same regulations in regards to workers rights as if they were operating in US, and continue with measured legal immigration from all over the world to the US as was planned in the past. This might require enforcing the borders of course.

The Ron Paul movement by nature could not necessarily provide a fair and menaingful solution in thsi regards. It is a middle calls movemetns and has reactionary dynamics in it. But exactly opposite to thsoe who become averted, the left should embrace it and help the movement to radicalize itself adn become more meaningful.

Dont try to ignore the history or movements in the history, very soon you will find out that you will become ireelevant not the movements which are obligatory part of the evolution .

Nader campaign as an independent will not coalesce the independent factions after the campaign is over. A run my McKinney as a Green has a better chance of organizational maintenance and cohesion after the campaign.

Understanding this dynamic, ironically, and the “spoiler” label may get Nader more press and media attention this campaign season. The media is unlikely to give McKinney much attention or “negative” press.

If Nader runs, while I may disagree with his run, I agree with his position on the issue and we need a voice who can clearly, especially if Clinton gets the nomination, counter the misleading rhetoric from the Democrats. Especially Clinton, who will say anything and distort everything to get elected.

Case in point “Universal HealthCare”. Clinton is labeling her program as such and it will certainly retard if not end any movement toward single-payer universal health care. And just like in the 1990’s will set health case back another 15 years.

While I agree with Ron in his analysis of the candidates, the biggest problem is the lack of cohesion on the left especially regarding the War on Iraq. The left has deliberately demobilized the anti-war movement in order to protect American Zionism. That’s the tragedy of the left in the United States.

If in the end, the goal was to have people like me completely withdraw their vote out of disillusionment. . . then you’ve won.

You bastards, you’ve won.

* Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
* No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
* End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
* Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

This is why I can’t support him. His approach to immigration is incredibly authoritarian and nationalistic. The ones that get me the most are his call for deportations, against amnesty, and ending birthright citizenship. The latter is a slippery slope–what’s next? Ending citizenship for others born in this country that don’t fit our current needs?
How can someone be for freedom (like Paul claims to be) yet support deportation and the incredible police apparatus that would require? Also, how can someone who claims to be for freedom and intiative refuse legalizing people who are here because they took initiative to find work and are only illegal because the laws were changed to make them that way. If you’re for individual freedom –as libertarians supposedly are–then how can you support making people illegal and refusing to make them legal?