However, many of Paul's supporters â€“ who have donated more than $20 million to his campaign over the past three months alone â€“ are not pleased with the ad. And some have expressed shock at his sudden tough stance against immigration.But there's no doubt Ron Paul is sincere in wanting to protect the United States from invasion. When Peter Brimelow wrote "This year, for the first time, all the Republican presidential candidates have felt the need at least to lie about their commitment to stopping illegal immigration," he didn't mean Ron Paul, he meant people like Giuliani, the "sanctuary city" man, or McCain who told Vanity FairÂ â€?By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But Iâ€™ll build the goddamned fence if they want it," later said "We're not going to erect barriers and fences," and as President, might do anything at all.
Justin Raimondo, editor of AntiWar.com, a blog Paul regularly contributes to, called the ad "disgraceful."
"Rarely has a more ignorant proposal been advanced," he said. "And it is made even worse by the fact that this is Ron Paul we're talking about."
He and other angry fans accused Paul of pandering to the conservative base of the GOP, specifically border-security voters who backed presidential candidate Tom Tancredo before he recently dropped out of the race.
"'No more student visas from terrorist nations' stands against his rhetoric of 'lets talk to people, trade with them, etc.,' as opposed to 'bomb them and interfere with them,'" writes a blogger[A commenter, not a member of Reason's staff] called "Ali" on Reason.com's blog. "But I think he's trying to appeal to a certain segment of the Republican base. I do not like it though. Otherwise, it is a good ad that has a Tancredo feel to it â€“ despite the fact that I despise Tancredo."[WorldNetDaily: Ron Paul shocker: No more â€?anchor babiesâ€™, January 4, 2007]