Rand Paul supports amendment to deny citizenship to children of illegals

[cali]

By Michael O'Brien - 06/24/10 11:55 AM ET

Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul said Thursday he would support amending the Constitution to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States.

Paul, the libertarian Republican nominee for the Senate who's also the son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), said courts should review the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," to determine whether or not it should apply to the children of illegal immigrants.

If those court challenges fail, Paul said in an interview with the conservative blog Right Wing News, then he would support an amendment that would have the effect of denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the U.S.

"But the 14th amendment actually says that you will be a citizen as long as you are under the jurisdiction of the United States," Paul said. "Many argue that these children that are born to illegal aliens are really still under the jurisdiction of the Mexican government."

"I think we need to fight that out in the courts," he added. "If we lose, then I think we should amend the Constitution because I don't think the 14th amendment was meant to apply to illegal aliens. It was meant to apply to the children of slaves."

<snip>

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/105287-rand-paul-favors-amendment-to-deny-citizenship-to-children-of-illegals-born-in-us

[Donnachaidh]

1. someone needs to send him a salt lick in the shape of a foot

I cannot believe this guy, after the previous shitstorm AGAIN shoves his own foot in his mouth clean up to the knee. Is he THAT stupid or just looking for some larger media exposure again?

[customerserviceguy]

8. You think this opinion is going to hurt him in Kentucky?

I'd venture to guess that his opinion is pretty popular in red state America.

[Toucano]

10. Kentuckians are very sensitive to anyone making them look like fools.

So, yes. I think it can hurt him in Kentucky.

Even republicans in KY fight the stereotyping of them as ignorant and if Paul draws mockery, they won't be pleased.

[customerserviceguy]

13. My point is

Out in red state America, this doesn't look foolish. The "create your own certifying board" thing looks stupid, but this is different.

[Toucano]

16. I get your point.

However, "...red state America..." is not a monolith.

There are subtleties and distinctions that need to be factored in.

We some voters in Kentucky agree with him? Of course. "Some voters" voted for him.

Will others be put off by the negative attention his radicalism attracts? Absolutely.

[customerserviceguy]

17. I'd have to say that the people who are put off by this remark

were statistically very unlikely to have voted for him in the first place. This may be his way of getting back in the good graces of the conservatives in Kentucky who saw his missteps as possibly damaging.

In any case, no matter what he says, or doesn't say in the next few months, I expect that he's going to replace Bunning in the US Senate.

[Donnachaidh]

19. what makes you think the conservatives in Kentucky *all* listen to him?

After all, he's a *bagger*. He comes up with this outlandish BS that cannot possibly pass any legislature anywhere. Don't make the mistake of classifying all conservatives with baggers -- that's the type of broadbrushing the Dems always complain about, when it's done to them.

He's a sideshow freak. And he's an *embarrassing* sideshow freak. He lost what little credibility he might have had when the licensing board *outed* his little scam. :shrug:

[customerserviceguy]

20. I wasn't commenting on Paul, only on this idea

The idea that we should discourage "anchor babies" is popular among all the conservative groups I'm familiar with. One possible exception might be the fundies, because those are 'souls' waiting to be 'saved' by contributing to fundie churches, but since most of them trend Catholic, I doubt it.

The country clubber Republicons love this idea, it keeps welfare costs down in their eyes. Perhaps you're mistaken in considering this as solely a teabagger notion.

[Donnachaidh]

23. uh no, I'm not wrong

I live in Newt Gingrich's old stomping grounds. Rand Paul is considered a nutter here. And the place is overflowing with country club pukes. They do NOT follow the crazed baggers. Not at -all-.

[customerserviceguy]

27. Yes, Rand Paul is goofy

but he did not burnish his goofy credentials by saying this to the potential group of people who would possibly consider voting for him.

The country clubbers have been using the fundies to get their tax breaks, they'll be even more successful at using the libertarians and the baggers. Besides, the chief "idea" that the baggers espouse is limited government, and country clubbers love that.

[Donnachaidh]

18. Red state people may have weird ideas, but they DON'T like being pointed and laughed at.

I know - I live in a red state.

this *is* going to hurt him. It may have some of the teabaggers short-stroking it, but the majority of the folks in Kentucky are probably grimacing every time this guy looks like he's going to open his mouth.

[customerserviceguy]

21. This is not a "weird" idea

If a reliable poll was done on it, you'd probably see substantial support for it across the US. Maybe even a majority would back it.

If those already born in this country to illegal immigrant parents were grandfathered in, this idea might be unstoppable. Every time we play the immigration reform game, we add laws that are supposed to stop the flow of illegal immigration, just like that "you have to show ID to get a job" thing that was part of Simpson-Mazzoli. Of course, nobody had a color photocopier worth a crap in those days, but improving technology defeated that idea.

If there were a comprehensive immigration reform package that gave a path to citizenship for those already here, built a solid "wall" both physical and legal, penalized employers for flouting the law, and prevented the anchor baby effect, would it be acceptable to a majority of Americans and their representatives? I'd say that it would.

[NHLrocks]

2. has he finally gone off the deep end?

[arbusto_baboso]

3. Why stop there? Why not deny citizenship to the children of legal immigrants as well?

After all, even immigrants with green cards aren't Americans, so why should their American-born kids be? Come to think of it, even children of citizens shouldn't automatically get citizenship. It should be decided by the economic royalty to whom this country truly belongs.

In case you couldn't tell... :sarcasm:

[JuniperLea]

4. Why not just cut to the chase...

You know Paul and his minions would like nothing more than an WASP only country... why not just push the White Anglo Saxon Protestant meme?

I'm so sick of the emboldened bigotry... sickening.

I'm 12th generation American on my mother's side, but I don't feel any more American than the children born in American hospitals today, regardless of their ancestry or the citizenship of their parents. This is just wrong.

[burnsei sensei]

5. It's unconstitutional on its face,

it must never stand.
The 14th Amendment, if eviscerated even a little, will prove fragile if we don't fight for it.

[customerserviceguy]

12. That Amendment

gives Congress the right to define citizenship. Congress used its authority under the relevant section to define the children of foreign diplomats as not being citizens. It also used that authority to define those born to US citizens on foreign military bases as being "natural born" citizens, eligible to run for the Presidency (as with John McCain).

If Congress passed such a law, and attached it to a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and the President signed it, do you think that the current composition of the Supreme Court would rule against it?

[pinboy3niner]

29. The Supreme Court would have to overturn an 1898 decision

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark the Court held:

The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

[customerserviceguy]

31. The Supreme Court overturns old decisions all the time

But I'll admit, it is an obstacle.

However, it is symbolic to try to do this, and just like flag burning laws, I expect that this topic will generate a lot of heat, without necessarily changing anything.

[pinboy3niner]

34. The flag-burning law comparison is a good one

This isn't as blatant, but for at least some conservative lawmakers the appearance of being tough on the issue seems more important than actually passing something. Like the flag-burning bans, these kinds of proposals always seem to come up during an election cycle...

Others are more serious--including the nativist and white supremacist groups behind the anti-immigrant proposals. They'll work hard for passage of a law, and if they get it and it's struck down, they'll even push for an amendment--as difficult as that is.

[customerserviceguy]

35. I do see an anti-anchor baby provision

as a part of any comprehensive immigration reform that might be passed before we get a more progressive Congress in 2013. Any such laws always include "well, it won't happen any more!" provisions that are designed to make each immigration reform the 'last' one that finally solves the problem, even though we know that never really happens.

I can see the reich wing insisting on a no-future-anchor-baby provision as a condition for approving immigration reform of any sort, and I see there being enough Blue Dogs to go along with it.

Is it really such a bad idea on a go-forward basis?

[burnsei sensei]

30. That 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause,

along with Federalist 10, are the most powerful arguments for inclusion in this country.
If either are re-interpreted away from inclusion, this country could become much more repressive than it already is.

[customerserviceguy]

32. There's an easy rationale to base a change on

Back in the times of the Federalist Papers, and continuing until the time that the 14th was ratified, and even to the latter part of the 19th Century when the court case cited above this post was decided, it was seen that there was still plenty of room to absorb immigration. A case could be made that we just cannot expand at the same rate we did for the first 150 years of our nationhood.

[Mopar151]

6. For the people he's pandering to

You can't get crazy enough.....

[Swamp Rat]

7. Rand Paul will never be a U.S. Senator.

:)

[Toucano]

9. But what about he wisdom of our founding fathers and the ORIGINAL constitution

the he and is morans are constantly blabbering about?

Oh, I get it!

When it suits your racist, xenophobic, misanthropic, homophobic, selfish, and egotistical AGENDA, the founding fathers weren't the oracles of Delphi you make them out to be.

Fuck-monkey!

[krabigirl]

15. Exactly...they are all about the constitution unless they don't agree with it. Lol.

[amandabeech]

24. Ah, the Founding Fathers weren't involved in the 14th Amendment.

That came after the Civil War.

[NNN0LHI]

11. How far does he want to go back?

I am not sure I could prove that my ancestors came here "legally."

Could anyone?

Don

[hatrack]

14. Good luck overturning U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, Dr. Asshat . . .

:eyes:

[Travis_0004]

22. Thats the whole point of an admendment

An amendment doesn't need to agree with a previous supreme court case.

If Rand Paul got his way, then the 14th amendment would be thrown out, and US v. Wong Kim Ark, would mean nothing.

[amandabeech]

25. I think that the amendments proposed would amend the amendment,

not negate the whole thing.

If they were serious about getting something like this through, they would make it as narrow as possible.

[Mr. Blonde]

28. Wasn't the question in Wong Kim Ark

"Are children born to non-citizens here legally born with US citizenship?"

Although worded broadly and assumed to give citizenship to anyone born here regardless of the status of their parents, it wouldn't mean overturning it. Obviously parents here legally vs illegally is an easy distinction to draw and wouldn't involve nearly the tortured logic the court sometimes uses.

[political_Dem]

26. Rand Paul is nothing short of a nativist ass.

How much more proof does it take to convince people that this man is racist?

[JoePhilly]

33. Notice he thinks all "illegals" are Mexican.

Here's the line ....

Paul said. "Many argue that these children that are born to illegal aliens are really still under the jurisdiction of the Mexican government."

Why would he think that all "illegals" would be "Mexican".

Rand's true colors slipped through.