Stof, that's got to be the strongest stance I've seen you take on something, evah. Bravo, and I mean that.

Ron Paul FTW!!!

So if a woman sneaks accross the border and has a child in the US we should let her and the child stay despite the fact that she broke the law and the entire point was to utilize a loophole? 

I will agree with you that the plan has its problems, no doubt about it. The child is most certainly a victim here as it has no choice in the matter. But its not so cut and dry as you make it out to be. No matter how much you cuss and swear or feel passionate about it. Although I must admit I feel the same passion that you do.

In any case, I want to point out that this proposal has a grandfather clause, meaning that people already born in the US by this means aren't going to be booted.  Further it only applies to people who are born in the US with neither parent being a citizen. 

Already we have had a case where a woman was cought sneaking across the border to have her child and when they deported her she insisted that her child stay in the US.  Then once back in mexico she screamed bloody murder that she was seperated from her child.  We are expected to throw out our laws because they aren't conveniant for criminals?  Are we supposed to feel sorry for her because she insisted her child stay behind?  Or are we smart enough to recognize that this is just a scam meant to play on our compassion?

At the end of the day Americans are tired of this and thats why the amnesty bill was killed at the last minute by mass phone calls to capital hill by people letting their voices be heard. We are tired of giving more to other countries than any other nation bar none and turning around to find that people don't like that we just don't do things the exact way they want us to.  Is it really that much to ask for people to follow the laws of our country when you want to come here?

If I go to France I would be subject to French law, so why then if you come to the US are you not expected to be subject to US law? All of them?  

PS - This issue set aside, I hope we can seperate the light hearted debates on video games from this one and understand that even if we can't see eye to eye on a divisive issue, it does not mean we can't still get along.  If that were the case I would just as soon not have the discussion since neither of us are really going to change anything here to make it worth effecting the way we deal with each other down the line.

-

 While I disagree with alot of Ron Paul's ideas (foremost among them his desire to get rid of jus soli, and his stance on abortion, though I'm not against his view on making it a states right issue), I love most of his libertarian ideals, and at this point, I almost feel like thats what we need to set this country straight. He's at times far too strict of a constitutionalist, but I feel that the last 10 years (and the last 50 years in general) have seen too many of our founding ideals twisted, danced around, or outright broken. Seriously, how can we as Americans continue to allow our rights to be eroded? The removal of Habeas Corpus, the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments in particular being used to pervert our rights, while the powers of the federal government are now such that they have states by the balls, while the executive branch is doing everything it can to take a majority of power previously meant to be shared by the judicial and legislative. Guiliani is a hawkish, hypocritical fascist, and none of the other major candidates from either party are that much better. We need a president whose career and words have made it explicitly clear that he, as he stated, "...take my (his) marching orders from the constitution."

Ron Paul:  "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

Thomas Jefferson:  "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

BONUS ROUND!
Ron Paul:  "...the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."

When asked about George Washington's beliefs, one Rev. Abercrombie, who had known him personally, replied: "Sir, Washington was a Deist!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

The other two allegations are silly enough that I hope I don't need to debunk them. 

Oh of course. I love having conversations with people that I don't agree with. And I'm an NDPer, so I'm used to people not agreeing!

 Ron Paul just believes that it's the state's decision to inforce church and state in schools. If the schools want it they can if not they dont have to. 

No matter what I see the US doing like Britian did in V for Vendetta minus having one tyrant we switch them out every 4 years. Thats only if the presidents keep sucking like they have for the last 28 years. Ronald was our last good president then things went to crap.