Stefanie wrote:
I'm not a fan of the doctrine of selective incorporation. I believe that the entire Bill of Rights should be fully incorporated, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. However, even those who adopt the selective approach typically include the First Amendment.

This is a complicated statement to unwind. Personally, I would prefer a policy which totally incorporates the first 9 amendments to the Constitution, excepting the second. (Explaining my thoughts about the second is complicated and off topic here.) I beleive the author of the 14th amendment stated that he intended it to incorporate the first 8, and I think that is the right legal result. However, that is not the legal result that our courts have reached, prefering instead a "selective" model, if you will, in order to retain the right to regulate contracts. I don't think this direction was necessary, but it is the one we've been following for over 100 years.

Regardless of whether you prefer total or selective incorporation, it is clear both from the legislative intent and judicial precident that the 14th Amendment incorporates most, if not all, of the bill of rights. Ron Paul disagrees.

Has Paul stated that he believes that the Constitution does not (or should not) protect individuals against censorship by state governments?

Yes, here:

"It’s important to recognize that the First amendment applies only to Congress. Remember, the first sentence starts with "Congress shall make no law..." This means that matters of religious freedom and expression should be decided by the states, with disputes settled in state courts."

When you say "anti-immigration," are you referring to illegal immigrants or all immigrants? More to the point, to which is Paul referring? I think you've addressed that question in a previous post, but I just wanted to make the distinction, for the sake of clarity.

I assert that:

1. Ron Paul understands exactly what his bill would do. He is anti-immigration.
2. The anti-illegal immigration movement is largely xenophobic.

In regard to point 1, while its possible that this bill was a mistake, there is no evidence to suggest that. Its impact is extremely clear from its language, and it is featured as a primary example of Ron Paul's positions on social security and immigration by his political campaign. I do not think they would hold up a poorly formed idea in such a way.

The stated idea behind the bill is to deny legal immigrants social security benefits based on the theory that the reason illegal immigrants seek amnesty is to get access to these benefits. Supporters of the bill talk of stopping the Mexican run on social security. There are several problems with this theory:

A. The bill would deny legal immigrants access to social security benefits. The supporters of the bill cannot reconcile statements that they support legal immigration with the fact that they also support removing social security benefits for legal immigrants. Being willing to hurt a group of people is not the same thing as supporting them, even if they aren't the direct target of your work. If you really supported legal immigrants you would find a way to acheive your goal without screwing them. If you are going to screw them, don't be suprised when they do not support you and when they don't accept your assurances that you really do support them.

B. If Mexican illegals are offered amnesty, then they won't be illegal immigrants anymore. This is related to point 2.

C. Ron Paul has stated (and I'm sorry that I don't have a reference) that he beleives that offering immigrants the same benefits as other citizens encourages people to come here for the wrong reasons. This is clearly an anti-immigrant sentiment and supports the conclusion that Ron Paul would seek to create barriers to legal immigration. If you insist I can research a reference for this but I think my overall points here will stand even if you refuse to accept the validity of this part.

2. The anti-illegal immigration movement is largely xenophobic. While there are non-xenophobic reasons for supporting a resolution to the illegal immigration problem, most of the movement is not motivated by those reasons.

A. Most people in the anti-illegal immigration movement do not support a temporary work visa program for Mexican laborers. So, in spite of their rhetoric, they don't really care whether its legal or illegal. If its not about whether its legal or illegal, then what is it about?

B. Much of the rhetoric of the anti-illegal immigration movement centers around the idea that illegal immigrats come to America in order to leach off of the social welfare system. In general this sentiment is spectacularly insane, as the social welfare programs in the United States are substantially more meager than most places in the western world, and illegal immigrants generally don't have access to them. Why would they come HERE? It is hard to imagine what welfare benefit a Mexican would get living illegally in the United States that would be unavailable in Mexico.

C. Much of the anti-illegal immigration movement is, in fact, overtly nativist. Groups like the "Center for Immigration Studies" claim that they are pro-immigrant (really, who isn't) while publishing reams of position papers which attempt to show that immigration in general is bad for America.

Look at this. "Muslim immigration has fundamentally altered demography, culture, and the political landscape of Western Europe. Its impact on Jewish life is disastrous, and it has turned European foreign policy on the Middle East from even-handedness to one that is overtly anti-Israel, if not outright anti-Semitic."

Or this!"Immigration is incompatible with modern society..."

You just can't get more anti-immigrant than that.

RE: Ron Paul Supporters Make History with $6 Million Online Haul -- Updated | Threat Level from Wired.com