roxygen:

matryoshhka:

roxygen answered your question: Arab Student Union hosts Doctors for Dr. Ron Paul

What particular stances contrary to Arab American interests and Arab Americans alone?

I never claimed they were Arab-American issues alone. Arab-Americans do not comprise a discrete group that is disconnected from the rest and towards whom Ron Paul is particularly antagonistic. Rather, Arab-Americans live lives that negotiate between various pressing issues, and these issues are ones which I find Ron Paul does not address satisfactorily. That is not to say that these are uniquely Arab-American issues.

Briefly and informally, some of his positions which I think are problematic somewhat particularly to Arab-Americans are:

• his objection to the Civil Rights Act—even if his objection is merely that it is mandated federally. Arabs and other minorities face discrimination and racial profiling despite having such legislation in place. Ron Paul construes this type of legislation as a “massive violation of the rights of private property and contract.” Presumably, the right to be free from discrimination is not as paramount of a concern as the rights of private property. Whether or not this legislation is effective (I think to some extent it is, and he thinks it is not), he disagrees with it not based on its efficacy but rather on principle. 
• though he believes in non-intervention, this is not because he is just a kind pacifist who thinks Americans should mind their own business. His position on the Panama Canal illustrates such a tension. He rejected the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act. His emphasis is not on non-intervention but rather on not interfering with the free market. Presumably, intervention is outside the domain of the sovereign free market, but an act focused on accountability is a constraint on free market practices. His non interventionalism is arguably harmful when you consider that it represents a sort of “America in a vacuum” model. America’s business practices, at the very least, “intervene.” But he is disinterested in precluding that type of intervention. He also thinks we should withdraw from the UN.
• contrary to popular belief, he did not vote against the NDAA. He merely did not vote, and later supplemented a position against it. I will not speculate as to why this was his decision, but he is no better than Obama with regards to protecting the rights of citizens against unreasonable search and violation of privacy. His later advocacy for its repeal as a private citizen does not absolve him of his inaction as a public servant. This is obviously an issue for Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans. Additionally, his position on issues of the right to privacy are precarious aside from his NDAA non-vote.
• issues of immigration are very important for Arab-Americans, and so his immigration policies are problematic. He is against birthright citizenship. See also: his position on the wall with Mexico. Yes, we do not share a border with Syria or Algeria, but I think one has some latitude to extrapolate from this instance a greater theme of his immigration policy.

Thank you for the response. :) You hashed out a few particulars that I am glad you addressed.

Now, I wholly agree that people do not understand his voting history or the nature of his non-interventionist stances, though its safe to say that Paul has never passed himself off as being a pacifist (I realize you did not imply that but for the sake of general info) and that 1) his greater argument is that it is not in the interests of the US to intervene 2) his main beef with US wars is that they were not declared Constitutionally. So that’s a lack of information that we can agree on. Also, withdrawal from the UN is a pretty supplementary issue when you consider how much we funnel into it regardless of whether we endorse its resolutions or not - we generally already ignore them. Also, he has stated in a few interviews why interests should particularly discourage us against intervention - which is pretty honest from a government perspective. Also, he is notorious for abstaining from votes because that’s his way protest. Its just what he does.

In regards to the Civil Rights’ Act, the general argument of both Ron and Rand Paul is that the it infringes on property rights as you addressed. I do have have qualms about revoking such an act in the current system, and as the US currently stands (i.e. in regards to discriminatory issues) however, the actual argument lies in that any private business owner can reject business from whomever they so choose. Discriminatory issues become a factor but in terms of actual US law a property owner can still reject whomever they wish from the premises even with that standing legislation unless it becomes so blatant that it can be redressed. This aside, this has been an issue that has been inflated in that it could never even be challenged until other federal issues are redressed. His stance on property has more to do with individual liberties than it does the collective. That is simply an ideological divide - do you address liberties on a group or individual level? From a libertarian point of view - individual agency is supposed to eliminate collective lines, but sadly I don’t think we are to that point or that we will be allowed to.

Finally on belief that a country has a right to protect its borders - ideally there would be no borders, and this is where my views depart from Paul’s. I think that immigration law reform must happen first and foremost. I think that his most logical position in this regard is that we must end the war on drugs. Given border security issues and a number of flawed policies over the past number of years on a federal level, I don’t find it particularly surprising that states are instituting more Draconian measures in response. Regardless of my departure on his views on building a fence, I do think that the Fed has failed in this regard in that there must be some point at which reform is addressed. Once again, his views are more predicated on states’ have more power which runs with the rationale of having an exit option. Once again, its just another ideological divide. 

Anyway, I agree that people are generally misinformed on his actual views though I do feel that the rationale is sometimes overblown or overlooked. 

I think we both agree that much Arab-American support for Ron Paul is premised on an inaccurate understanding of his platform and a myopic focus on his policy with regards to Israel. But just a few additional comments I would make:

I think his not voting on decisive matters—particularly ones that he perceives to have very real moral dimensions—is irresponsible. It is not an interesting, meaningful, or admirable form of protest. 

Another thing I’d like to note is that regardless of whether he could actually manifest his ideas about the Civil Rights Act and other such ideas they are bad ideas. A lot of Ron Paul supporters will insist that he has no way of actualizing his more outlandish positions. But their plausible execution is not the point. That this is what he would do if he could is the point, and it should factor in our evaluation of him as a candidate.

Re: it simply being an ideological divide—I agree. However, as you mentioned, we do not live in a society in which the repeal of the Civil Rights Act is a reasonable option. You said, “do you address liberties on a group or individual level? From a libertarian point of view - individual agency is supposed to eliminate collective lines, but sadly I don’t think we are to that point or that we will be allowed to.” I am not certain what you mean about not being at a point where individual agency does or can or should eliminate collective lines. Do you mean that we are not at a place in which an individualistic approach to liberty is tenable? If so, you are correct. And furthermore, it is unclear that it has ever been or ever will be tenable, placing the libertarian side of the ideological divide in a somewhat precarious position in that it relies on an imagined set of circumstances for its applicability. Pardon me if I’ve misunderstood what you meant to say.

Regarding the war on drugs: ending the war on drugs will not immediately fix everything. Ron Paul’s libertarian belief system seeps into his beliefs about how an international community should be organized. Our ending the drug war swiftly has some very serious ramifications for other parts of the world, particularly in Latin America. I think it is important to consider this. While our drug policies undeniably need reform, I do not think a bold move to end the drug war immediately is responsible.

Regarding immigration: I do not understand the relationship between the Fed and immigration. Also, I do not see how state rights factor into this discussion. Immigration is a federal issue, and it does not seem like a good idea to allow states very much latitude with regards to individual immigration policies.