The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Ron Paul's latest ad running in Iowa and New Hampshire focuses on immigration. It has also stimulated debate among some of Paul's supporters. Justin Raimondo, the paleolibertarian editorial director of Antiwar.com, has called the ad "disgraceful," "ignorant," and "absolutely, outrageously, tragically wrong." Raimondo's ire is focused on the proposal to ban student visas for people from unspecified "terrorist nations."

Meanwhile Scott Richert, executive director of the paleoconservative Chronicles magazine, announced on Taki's Top Drawer that he is a fan of the ad. Richert argues that it will result in "public debate over which countries should be on the list -- which might finally mean an end to the silence about the Saudi regime's quiet support for Islamic terrorism."

Raimondo worries that this will undermine Paul's noninterventionist foreign-policy stance: If places such as the 9/11 hijackers' countries of origin are "in truth, 'terrorist nations' -- which most will take to mean all predominantly Muslim nations -- why not invade them, kill the terrorists, and be done with it?" Richert argues that curbing immigration from state sponsors of terror will "decrease, rather than increase, the pressure to spill American blood and treasure overseas" and "defend America at the best place we can: her borders."

If you thought there was uniformity of opinion among paleos on these questions, think again.

topics:
Islam, Immigration