TPM LiveWire
Rand Paul Suggests Children Of Illegal Immigrants Should Not Be U.S. Citizens (VIDEO)
Rand Paul, Republican candidate for US Senate seat in Kentucky
Share
Send to a friend!
Here's another one for the list of out-there Rand Paul statements...
Paul recently suggested to a Russian TV station that the U.S. should abandon its policy of granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants -- even if they're born on U.S. soil.
Paul also said he's discussed instituting an "underground electrical fence" on the border to keep out unwanted elements, though he emphasized that he's "not opposed to letting people come in and work and labor in our country."
The real problem, Paul said, is that the U.S. "shouldn't provide an easy route to citizenship" because of "demographics."
According to Paul, the proportion of Mexican immigrants that register as Democrats is 3-to-1, so of course "the Democrat Party is for easy citizenship."
He added: "We're the only country that I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen. And I think that should stop also."
The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether or not their parents are U.S. citizens.
Paul's not alone here. Others have suggested that the U.S. should change this part of the Constitution, including 90 House Republicans who have co-sponsored a bill that seeks to do just that.
But not so fast! Experts have told TPM that this is "clearly unconstitutional."
Immigration talk comes in at around the 8:30 mark:
The Paul campaign did not immediately return TPM's request for comment.
Comments (228) | Join the Conversation!
Inside TPM
-
Latest
-
Most Popular
All
TPMMuckraker
TPMDC
TPMLiveWire
-
The Delicate Dance Of Disassociating Oneself From 'White Nationalist' Groups At CPAC
-
Judge Won't Toss Weapons Evidence In Schaeffer Cox Case
-
Women's Groups Broadly Support Birth Control Compromise
-
British Man Using 'Sovereign Citizen' Tactics To Get Out Of Weapons Smuggling Charges
-
White House Seeks To Mute Catholic Uproar Over Contraception Rule
-
The Conspiracy Videos In The Hutaree's Library
-
How Scalia Helped Obama Defend The Birth Control Rule
-
Oregon Senator Stung By Suit Over Combat Camp Cash
-
Dems Slam Romney For Inconsistencies On Birth Control
-
Rubio Bill Lets ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage
© 2011 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
EnnuiDivine
May 28, 2010 8:47 AM
What a surprise: Paul refers to his fictional enemies, the "Democrat Party"
For a "strict constitutionalist", Rand Paul seems awfully hostile to the constitution. Maybe he'd like to eliminate the 14th amendment rather than repeal that pesky Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
May 28, 2010 10:14 AM in reply to EnnuiDivine
When -- when!!! -- is every snide reference to the "Democrat Party" going to be met by a calm response that includes the phrase "Republic Party"? I can't believe that one of Geo. Bush's verbal stumbles has been instituted as a long-running and now almost acceptable insult to the DemocratIC Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EnnuiDivine
May 28, 2010 10:19 AM in reply to Elizabeth2
Aesthetically, "Republic Party" doesn't sound as grating to the ear, though it's just as asinine.
As Rachel Maddow points out, "Democrat Party. It has RAT right in there"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
May 28, 2010 11:00 AM in reply to EnnuiDivine
How about "Republical" party? If they can fantacize, why can't we. And we only do this for people that say "Democrat Party" first.
If called it on it, we hasten to say that it's childish on their behalf, but the only issue here is the below-the-belt instinct to call us names and then try to deny it, the sole purposes being malice and insult. So we're highlighting the dirty schoolyard tactics in saying Republical, but when they stop, we may as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsj20002
May 28, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to Overreach THIS!
I use the name "Republicant". It has a nice alliterative feel when used to describe the House minority whip, as in "Republicant Cantor."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
May 28, 2010 12:09 PM in reply to jsj20002
I may try that out! :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
May 28, 2010 1:03 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
Might as well. My attempt to get us to refer to Republicans as "Tories" has gone nowhere, even though it would drive the people in pseudo-revolutionary costumes utterly nuts. Well, more nuts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 28, 2010 9:38 PM in reply to ericf
It's the Publican party -- they get to drop one syllable, we can drop one syllable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jfarrell709
May 28, 2010 11:15 AM in reply to EnnuiDivine
Democrat is a noun, not an adjective. Ronald Reagan's attempt to make it an adjective, as in 'Deomocrat Party' should have been vociferously opposed from the outset. The correct adjective is 'Democratic.' Copy editors should correct it every time the GOP misspeaks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EnnuiDivine
May 28, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to jfarrell709
In the interest of fairness, there IS a Democrat Party.
They're the ruling party in Thailand.
There is no Democrat Party in the US.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clonecone
May 28, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to jfarrell709
Reagan didn't start this. McCarthy is the one who made it popular among the GOP cool kids.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jung at Heart
May 28, 2010 12:56 PM in reply to EnnuiDivine
THAT's right ... it doesn't sound as grating,
and
As usual = Rachel shows herself to be a better
"shrink" than most who have licenses, but
Re-THUG-lican party is not only grating but
right ON target. In NV we've been calling it
that for ages, and
Those who worry that either Ensign (the fetid,
rotting puke) or Lowden (nutcase Botox junkie)
will be elected / re-elected
FEAR not ... the game is afoot and they LOSE.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
May 28, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to Jung at Heart
rethuglican is my favorite as well. I do not use a capitol R as a little bit of additional reflection on the childish disrespect the use of Democrat implies. If ever there were organized THUGS in American politics it is the right wing lie machine that tears at every decency for power and profit. The rethuglican party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
May 28, 2010 4:31 PM in reply to hollywood
my favorite for both parties is asshole. there is not much difference between them that it is worth the arguement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
May 28, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to jjdjjd
My word for a person who thinks there's no difference between the parties is "ignoramus."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
May 28, 2010 5:37 PM in reply to hunter
good, we all have names for each other.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
windowpane
May 28, 2010 5:59 PM in reply to hunter
I call them Ralph Nader.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 2:46 AM in reply to EnnuiDivine
Agreed. I sort of lean to referring to them as Repugs, myself. Goopers is pretty good, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
May 28, 2010 11:02 AM in reply to Elizabeth2
This goes waaaaaaaay further back than George Bush. Bob Dole was doing this as far back as his 1976 primary challenge against Gerald Ford. It's as old as the hills, and almost as old as Dole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Decider
May 28, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to Elizabeth2
We are technical correct, buddy. You are democrats, aren't you? So you are the democrat party. I can't help it if people just love to follow my leed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
May 31, 2010 2:04 AM in reply to The Decider
No, you're ignorant. The official name of the Democratic Party is THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. You can pretend all you want that you're usage is legitimate, but it only highlights your willful ignorance, your inability to think on your own, and your propensity to follow blindly those who care not for this country, nor for you. I guess I would call you retarded*.
*retarded use for satirical purposes only.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jfields
May 28, 2010 12:44 PM in reply to Elizabeth2
Uh, this wasn't a stumble. This is Luntzian word-manipulation, enshrined in GOP doctrine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spambalaya
May 28, 2010 9:38 PM in reply to Elizabeth2
Nope, I think "Repubican" has a better ring to it. And when a reporter asks the speaker if he or she misspoke, the speaker should just say, "We have the Democrat Party and the Repubican Party, right? So as I was saying, the Repubicans are opposed to..." and then continue as if nothing was amiss.
In a similar vein, I also think that we should start using the appropriate pronunciation and spelling of John Boner's name from now on, since he's one of the most persistent offenders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
May 28, 2010 10:48 PM in reply to Elizabeth2
Better lose the first syllable instead of the last, and refer to them as "Publicans." This word appears in the Bible and it means a tax collector, which ought to give them heartburn. One well-known Biblical trope is "publicans and sinners."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bobzaguy
May 29, 2010 3:27 PM in reply to Nancy Irving
Nancy, in the Bible, publicans and sinners were two separate types of people...today, they are seen as just one…GOP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
May 28, 2010 10:20 AM in reply to EnnuiDivine
Commie bastard. Is he such a coward he can not face the Fourth Estate at home?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pam
May 28, 2010 12:03 PM in reply to EnnuiDivine
Good Point! Rand Paul is not the right fit for the US Senate, he need to stick with denistry...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MTinMO
May 28, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to Pam
Except that he is an ophthalmologist- eyes, not teeth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 28, 2010 10:28 PM in reply to MTinMO
I understand why Pam confused him with Orly Taitz.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
May 28, 2010 10:54 PM in reply to AJM
"Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans everything" - Shakespeare.
Pretty well describes the patient after s/he's through with treatment by GOP physicians...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
May 28, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to EnnuiDivine
he's a dolt
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 2:44 AM in reply to EnnuiDivine
Maybe he'd like to eliminate the 14th amendment rather than repeal that pesky Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I'm beginning to think he's getting awfully close to calling for a repeal of the 13th as well.
A couple of days ago, I'd have been quick to say I didn't think he was a racist, he was just an absolutist who was callous to what the real world consequences of strict adherence to his political principles would be. Now I am questioning my initial impression. If the only problem he has with providing Mexican immigrants with the same easy route to citizenship that his own ancestors had is demographic -- I'm sorry, that's racist. That's the same objection 19th century Know-Nothings had to Irish and Italian immigrants, and the same objection that later nativists had to immigrants from Russia and China.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John M
May 29, 2010 10:34 AM in reply to EnnuiDivine
Does the fact that Rand Paul prefers to give interviews to Russian TV mean that he's a closet communist as well as wanting to trample the 14th amendment? We've already seen that King Tea Bagger, Rand Paul is a closet racist and bogot by his comment on the Civil Rights Act.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John M
May 29, 2010 10:46 AM in reply to EnnuiDivine
Maybe we should just call them them the Pub party. Maybe Rand Paul spent too much time in the Pub. (Pub is "British" for tavern or bar in case you don't know.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Azdak
May 28, 2010 8:50 AM
The idea that teabaggers are working to "protect the Constitution" is one of their biggest and most fundamental lies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
May 28, 2010 9:22 AM in reply to Azdak
They never really made clear which constitution, did they?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bvd
May 28, 2010 9:36 AM in reply to zonk
They mean the one that only exists in their fevered imaginations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
May 28, 2010 9:48 AM in reply to bvd
The constitution did some good things, it just went too far.
Who knew that Rand Paul was really just a vessel to channel the spirit of Marge Schott?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
May 28, 2010 9:52 AM in reply to bvd
Or whatever $arah offers up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
May 28, 2010 9:55 AM in reply to bvd
The want to protect that W.A.S.P. Constitution - you know, the way God intended.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 2:51 AM in reply to bvd
Hey, Rand Paul has his own ophthalmology certification board, maybe he has his own constitution, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
May 28, 2010 9:57 AM in reply to zonk
It certainly seems that Mussolini's version is more up their alley...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steelerhawk47
May 28, 2010 11:51 AM in reply to Azdak
"The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."
— Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CyberDuckie
May 28, 2010 8:20 PM in reply to Steelerhawk47
Glenn Beck has this down to a T with his Nazi tourettes!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
biff diggerence
May 28, 2010 8:58 AM
The real problem, Paul said, is that the U.S. "shouldn't provide an easy route to citizenship" because of "demographics."
________________________
Duh.
Howsabout "economics", shitkicker?
Perdue has plants in KY, don't they?
They advertise for jobs in Meheeco.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rumpole
May 28, 2010 10:30 AM in reply to biff diggerence
Right. But he's not a racist, oh no. It may be true that not all libertarians are racists (they merely believe in policies that enable racism in institutional form), but I don't get the sense this clown is concerned with refugees from the Ukraine that got pregnant while on a student visa.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LonewackoDotCom3
May 28, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to biff diggerence
What he means, of course, is that the Dems are trying to gain power through mass immig. If most illegal aliens were likely Republicans, the Dems would say the same thing. In either case, one wonders why we should give in to one party's desire to support illegal activity in order to obtain political power.
And, if Jillian Rayfield weren't such a hack, she would have pointed out that the "unconstitutional" link didn't ask them to specifically address the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part. The original author didn't intend it to apply to "foreigners" and "aliens". It's only been interpreted - yes, for a century or so - as applying to those born to illegal aliens.
This is a much deeper Constitutional issue than this post and the quotes at the earlier post imply, and those two "scholars" at the other link aren't acquitting themselves very well by just giving hackish responses.
The only good thing I can say about this post or the quotes at the other link is that they didn't go as far as MALDEF and selectively edit the authors' quote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
May 28, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3
There is no context in which to place the 14th amendment that comes out as you seem to think. The language is absolutley clear, and had to be to ensure no one continued to claim (as at least one Supreme Court case had) that manumitted freeman were not citizens and as a result neither were their children. People stolen from Africa having children in this country are about as "foreign" as one could be, but you just keep thinking there was some secret exception clause that wasn't written down.
If you knew the history of immigration in this country you'd realize how silly your argument is. At the time of the 14th Amendment, there was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant". Although the Consitutition gave Congress the right to pass laws on naturalization, the laws at the time made no provision for barring people at the border, so anyone could show up, liver here legally, and seek to become a citizen immediately. The United States was happy to let in anyone who could get here until the 1870s, after the passage of the 14th. Until the issue of what to do with freedman and their families came up after the 13th Amendment was passed, anyone born here had been assumed to be a citizen as long as they weren't a slave.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
May 28, 2010 5:01 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The author is as clear as he could possibly be: if you're born here, you're a citizen. Period.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Liquid Reigns
May 29, 2010 12:24 AM in reply to hunter
From Wong Kim Ark vs US: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
Key words being "permanent domicile". What was "permanent domicile", look to the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Domicile had an unambiguous definition in 1866: one acquired domicile in a nation or a particular place by moving there with the intention of making it one’s permanent residence. Only two prerequisites must be satisfied for domicile to exist: “residence; and . . . intention of making it the home of the [person]”.
A person could change domicile by leaving one jurisdiction and settling in another, regardless of whether those jurisdictions were states within a country or separate nations. In certain international contexts (such as neutrality agreements), acquiring domicile resulted in “a national character [being] impressed upon a person, different from that which permanent allegiance gives him”; such a person, though, could easily choose to cast off that “national character” by returning to his or her native country. Domicile and citizenship were thus distinct from one another, and acquiring the former in a new country did not alter the latter.
...
If domicile is the appropriate standard, individuals born here and subject to our laws would not be “subject to the jurisdiction” for citizenship purposes if their parents were here only temporarily. Using domicile in this way is thus more restrictive than the pure territorial approach: it requires parents to have some meaningful ties to the country in which they are living for children born there to be citizens.
Domicile requires individuals to integrate themselves into a nation’s social fabric through residence such that they consider it their home and have no plans to leave. Beyond residence, it requires that an individual seek, and the country accept, affiliation between the individual and the government of the country. Thus, those here on non-immigrant visas should not have bestowed upon their children born within the boundaries of the United States of America, birthright citizenship, as they themselves are not intending to permanently reside or be domiciled within the USA, and they do not intend to give their "allegiance" to the US Constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 3:22 AM in reply to Liquid Reigns
That's not in agreement with the rationale explained in the Wikipedia article on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the "Opinion" section of which the italicized portion of your comment appears to be quoting.
Here is what Wikipedia says:
That same article also mentions the case of Plyler v. Doe in a discussion of the effects of the Wong decision (my bolding):
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Liquid Reigns
May 29, 2010 10:52 AM in reply to slb
Actually, if you read that "Rational" section clearly, my comment is in full agreement. As the "Rational" clearly states: since none of these conditions applied to Wong's situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact that "...during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China". (I highlighted the key section for you)
Now if you are going to use Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you verify the information it gives, as Justice Gray clearly states: Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693. Your Wikipedia Plyler vs Doe argument uses: As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. Which in fact is arguably not what Justice Gray stated in Wong Kim Ark. If you can find in your Wikipedia's used phrase ("no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.") in the Opinion of Justice Grays stated Opinion, then I will redact my comments.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Liquid Reigns
May 29, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to Liquid Reigns
To clear up the complete mis-understanding for those that think Plyler vs Doe somehow construes the "Citizenship Clause" upon those born here to Entry Violators or non-immigrant visa holders/violators, I strongly encourage you to actually read Plyler vs Doe which is discussing the "due process" and "equal protection" aspects of the 14th Amendment, not the Citizenship Clause. Wherein "within the jurisdiction" is as follows: Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction—either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States—he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/457/457.US.202.80-1934.80-1538.html
A "Birth Certificate" or "Birthright Citizenship" does not fall in line with the ruling of Plyler vs Doe as suggested by slb.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
May 28, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3
Wow, this is way funnier than I thought. I just noticed that your post is basically cut/pasted from the earlier story about the clear unconstitutionality of these proposals. Did you think you would be less thoroughly beaten down this time?
Just to recap: even if Jacob Howard wanted to exclude all children of "foreigners" as you suggest, he didn't get what he wanted. The language of the amendment is clear, and the courts (and reasonable people) only consider legislative history when the language is ambiguous. But also, the suggestion that he was trying to exclude all children of foreigners is pretty ridiculous in itself; he was fairly clearly talking about the children of diplomats who are outside of US jurisdiction. You can tell that by the way he specifically excluded people who were not under US jurisdiction while making absolutely no attempt at similarly restricting the children of immigrants.
And just one last bit of irony. Here's the last paragraph from the link you yourself posted:
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has a bold idea to stop illegal immigration: Deny automatic citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. "There is general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are children of folks who come into this country illegally," he told the Washington Times. General agreement? Perhaps among Mr. Tancredo's friends in the House but not among the framers of the 14th Amendment. Indeed, any such modern consensus would have a small problem in the text of the Constitution, which is, inconveniently for anti-immigrant demagogues, not subtle on the point. The 14th Amendment begins: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Not "all persons except children of illegal immigrants," not "all persons except those Congress exempts in moments of nativism." All persons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LonewackoDotCom3
May 28, 2010 7:29 PM in reply to hunter
You can read what the author of "subject thereto" actually said here; he did get his way.
And, here's what he said: This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Not all "foreigners" and "aliens" belong to those "families"; clearly he was referring to those as different (perhaps overlapping) groups.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 28, 2010 9:51 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3
That's not what he meant and if he was trying to get his way he blew it. An established principle for interpreting law is that if the language is clear you go no further. You need not look at obscure and debatable utterances of the individual legislators who passed the thing. It is hard to get much clearer than the relevant sentence: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The legislators who voted for that are presumed to have meant what they said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 3:35 AM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3
I don't read what he is saying the same way you do. Your interpretation would require what he said to be:
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..."
Without the "or," I read "foreigners, aliens," as an appositive, just as if the sentence had read "...persons born in the United States who are foreigners who belong to the families of ambassadors..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 28, 2010 9:44 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3
If illegals are 'not subject to our jurisdiction' our laws would not apply to them and they would be above our laws. Is that what you think the Framers meant?
It helps to have a little common sense. Good Luck with that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
picklenoses
May 28, 2010 8:59 AM
So he speaks to a Russian TV station, but is refusing interviews with the "lamestream media." Now can you imagine if a Democrat did that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Snig
May 28, 2010 9:56 AM in reply to picklenoses
That's a really good point. The broadcast is from May 26th, right after he blew off Meet the Press. If his argument that he didn't want to do national press things as he wanted to concentrate more on Kentucky, why is he talking immigration/European/Federal reserve issues? Is it so Sarah Palin can watch him on the news from her house?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
May 28, 2010 10:47 AM in reply to Snig
It's more than a mere good point, really. It's factual. He wasn't going to appear on Meet the Press, his surprise shill John Cornyn said, for the reason that he had to focus on the Kentucky news and the Kentucky race. That was the reason, period.
So he just made a liar out of Cornyn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
May 28, 2010 10:06 AM in reply to picklenoses
That particular TV channel is also a supportive vessel for conspiracy theories that the Pauls subscribe to, such as the supposed proposal to create a 'Northern Union'(or whatever they call it) - and other fine comedies.
Russia Today is the Fox News of anti-American conspiracy theories. They have had all sorts of 'scientists' predicting the downfall of America, race war, the Northern Union, plenty of coups have been forecast, and on and on.
And just take a look at the comments on any RT clip at YouTube - their U.S fan base is solid (fake)libertarian, all of whom are your typical ultra zealous Paul comedy team advocates. The people who call us 'sheeple' if we don't believe Obama is a one man terror cell, and that Israel committed the 9/11 attacks. And on and on.
I really hope that under the republican banner, mister Paul and mister Paul continue to fly their beautiful brand of crazy - the benefits to the Democratic Party are immense every time they open their mouths to any audience outside of their bizarro base.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
May 28, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to cinesimon
You nailed it.
RT is always featuring crazy fringe fools like 9/11 Truthers and various other conspiracy morons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sunshinedem
May 28, 2010 10:23 AM in reply to picklenoses
He's so un_American.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spambalaya
May 29, 2010 4:32 AM in reply to sunshinedem
Why does Rand Paul hate America?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnAH
May 28, 2010 9:05 AM
I love when the ones who want a "strict interpretation of the Constitution" when it fits with their other beliefs also want to throw it out the window when it doesn't fit their views.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
May 28, 2010 9:55 AM in reply to JohnAH
Kinda like religion.
Scriptures: The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
-- Ambrose Bierce
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
May 28, 2010 11:52 PM in reply to jeffgee
Pure Ambrosia!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
realist
May 28, 2010 9:10 AM
Paul and the other Reconstructionist Christians fear people with dark skin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
May 28, 2010 9:11 AM
Somebody ought to inform Mr. Paul that there is a difference between a "policy" and a Constitutional requirement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdog207
May 28, 2010 9:14 AM
Rand Paul should not be a US citizen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jaycal
May 28, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to bdog207
Lets all go back to the "Sins of the father shall be inherited by the son." In which case, I think there's an argument that both Rand and Ron are aliens... the ET kind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pedro
May 28, 2010 9:20 AM
Ummm, this is also SETTLED LAW - United States v. Wong Kim Ark back in 1898. In FACT, back during the big scare that the Western US was being overrun by Chinese, congress passed the "Chinese Exclusion Act," and this supreme court act struck down a portion of it.
And Rand Paul's great, great (possibly one more great) grandparents emigrated from Germany, in the 1800's. If it's found that they were to have immigrated illegaly, or if no one can find the documents that they came to the US legally, would that nullify citizenship for the entire Paul family, banning Rand Paul for running for office? This proposed law makes no sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mogelsberg
May 28, 2010 9:41 AM in reply to Pedro
Exactly! I'm pretty sure the Irish side of my family immigrated here illegally from Canada. That would necessarily nullify the citizenship of my entire HUGE family! Interestingly enough, many of them vote Republican......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjtrac2
May 28, 2010 10:45 AM in reply to Pedro
From your lips to gods ear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 3:58 AM in reply to Pedro
The concept of "illegal immigrant" is of relatively recent vintage. The first federal immigration law was passed in 1875, and its purpose was to restrict Chinese immigration, and in particular Chinese laborers for the railroads. It was followed by the more comprehensive Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
US immigration laws have been tainted by racism ever since.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
May 28, 2010 9:22 AM
America must elect candidates who support humane immigration reform - letting the innocent families who have risked their lives to come to this country stay here in peace and without fear.
http://www.facebook.com/campaigncorner
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vasu
May 28, 2010 9:23 AM
See... He's really a communist. That is why he went to russia..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
May 28, 2010 9:25 AM
Keep talking Randi - keep talking and digging that fucking hole. Good riddance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
a2nrglaw
May 28, 2010 9:26 AM
I don't really understand what is so Republican about Rand Paul that he would use that hated "Democrat party" reference. And why would he decide to mess with this provision of the Constitution? He wants to substitute, for a provision that is generous and robust, his own cramped and ugly concept.
Hateful little man, really.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kali Star
May 28, 2010 9:27 AM
There's an upside to Paul and his ilk. While they may win some local elections, turning the Latino vote against Republicans, as the Arizona law has, will keep Republicans out of the White House for generations. It comes down to demographics.
He's doing the Left a favor. And time to put Palin on the spot on this issue immediately.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Danila
May 28, 2010 9:27 AM
Wow.. isn't immigration what this country is founded on? The promise of a better life, if not for you then for your children?
Oh and Rand Paul might not know this, but Russia Today is "indirectly" funded by the Kremlin. The whole point of the station is to make Russia look good and the US not so much.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
May 28, 2010 10:20 AM in reply to Danila
That's exactly why he's a regular on Russia Today. They embrace any conspiracy theory concerning America they can find.
Along with the Paul family comedy, one of their favorite regulars is Alex Jones.
And that about says it all, really...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
May 28, 2010 9:30 AM
Ah yes, Russia Today. Tabloid journalism at its finest. Featuring important American figures like Rand Paul and Webster Tarpley.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Captain
May 28, 2010 9:32 AM
So what business is population "demographics" to the government for a "libertarian"???????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
May 28, 2010 9:38 AM
Uhm....why is he on Russian TV when's he's running for Senate in Kentucky?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
May 28, 2010 9:49 AM in reply to Viva!America!
Because RT loves featuring crazy Americans that make the United States look like a bunch of nuts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
May 28, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to LiberalRedneck
Which they do by the way as an ongoing "thank you" for Bush's Second-Cold-War craziness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
May 28, 2010 11:07 AM in reply to Overreach THIS!
Horse shit. They do it for the same reason Fox does: ratings and money.
This has nothing to with Bush, damn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
May 28, 2010 11:41 AM in reply to LiberalRedneck
Yeah, well your cussing may strike you as persuasive, but the truth is a little different.
Putin raised a whole Army of screaming nationalists, funded by the Kremlin, to rail at the USA's hostile actions like the crazed attempts to expand NATO inside the historic Russian Empire, and the cockamamie European "Defense" missiles posed toward Moscow.
The U.S. has stopped its provocations, but the Kremlin has a long memory and is only beginning to take out its revenge, such as the 25 year lease they just maneuvered for their Naval port of Sevastopol. For example, they are moving to intertwine themselves inextricably into Ukraine's industrial, nuclear, and defense bases to have a good slow last laugh for themselves at our expense.
One of Putin's propaganda instuments in this, is the Kremlin's Russia Today (RT). If they have good ratings, great, but that's not their purpose. That indeed is vengeance, intimidation, and expansion of Russia's perceived interests, and this bad trend is why the Obama Administration called for the Reset Button to be pressed. Though it was too little, too late for the Kremlin. And you can curse all you like, but it's all about Bush.
And by the way, the first person to call Bush on 9/11 was a friendly and much-concerned Vladimir Putin and he didn't deserve to then be treated with such unremitting abuse from the wack-job Bush White House. Neither was it very smart policy to openly and spitefully antagonize a perhaps excitable career-KGB agent whose help we could have used to fight terrorism. Even though high-profile attempts to humiliate him may have made madmen like Dick Cheney and his cohorts feel great about themselves.
And we are going to be paying the price for this, yet another of Bush's ruinous policies, for a long, long time. And Putin plans to see to that, so the next absolute jackass who rides a wave of rube-fever into the White House thinks twice about molesting Russia. And RT is merely one of Putin's tools in that long-term campaign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
May 28, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to Overreach THIS!
Oh, I completely believe that to you it's all about Bush.
Let me repeat: horse shit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
May 28, 2010 12:12 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
Thanks for keeping an open mind and considering different perspectives. Those are the hallmarks of an educated person.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
May 28, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
"Keeping an open mind is a virtue, but, as the space engineer James Oberg once said, not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan
Whatever you say, man.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
May 28, 2010 9:42 AM
"Demographics"...
This Nativist asshole is probably upset we let the Irish and the Italians in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bvd
May 28, 2010 9:42 AM
Let's face it - white people are just freaking out all over the place. Between a black president and a free-falling majority status we are on the brink of a collective nervous breakdown. I suggest we all take a fistful of valium and go back to bed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
May 28, 2010 11:10 AM in reply to bvd
That's very funny, of course, and good on a Friday.
But there is a reality, of course, that a whole lot of us lily white folk simply don't give a hoot about this, love our President and supported him, are relieved that these Nativist bigots and neo-Klan types are increasingly outnumbered, and are not in any way freaking out. Eh? :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
May 28, 2010 9:50 AM
Paul showed his hand when he said Hispanics register with the "Democrat" (dogwhistle here) party. Can't have any more HIspanics here if they do that.
If Hispanics voted heavily for the GOP, the party would be welcoming illegal immigrants.
I got something radical for Rand. No automatic citizenship for ANY babies born in the U.S. Make 'em take a test to see if they're really worthy. Make 'em earn it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Virginia
May 28, 2010 9:50 AM
A libertrian should be in favor of the free flow of economic assets, including labor. In other words, no immigration restrictions whatsoever.
More evidence that these "libertarians" are really just right-wing extremists. They are so fond of "Atlas Shrugged." Anyone who has slogged through that turgid piece of crap knows that Mexico is demonized as the symbol of every inferiority of the human race.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
renet
May 28, 2010 10:22 AM in reply to Virginia
Virgina: You were able to actually read an Ayn Rand book? You deserve a medal for valor, or for dogged persistent masochism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kali Star
May 28, 2010 10:57 AM in reply to renet
or surviving a literature course with a former radical college professor
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CyberDuckie
May 28, 2010 9:10 PM in reply to Virginia
"A libertrian should be in favor of the free flow of economic assets, including labor."
Oh, he is.
"...he emphasized that he's 'not opposed to letting people come in and work and labor in our country.'"
He doesn't want those pesky Meheecans coming here to live, but he's perfectly okay with having them come here to continue doing all the jobs that we don't like doing. Most likely at a minimal, controlled wage. So it's like he's saying...
"Here's a quarter. Fix my toilet. Then get out of my country!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 28, 2010 10:30 PM in reply to CyberDuckie
Naw -- Rand would be completely willing to let them stay here as long as they were a permanent underclass and couldn't vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CyberDuckie
May 28, 2010 11:02 PM in reply to AJM
Ah yes, true, true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 4:07 AM in reply to AJM
Which is why I said upthread that he appears to be getting perilously close to calling for repeal of the 13th amendment as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
May 28, 2010 9:55 AM
Yet another attack on the constitution from a right winger.
How these guys can swear loyalty to the U.S constitution when elected, given they only actually have any interest in upholding the bits that appeal directly to their ideology, is beyond me.
They really believe that America is theirs and nobody elses. And the parts of the constitution they disagree with, apparently aren't REALLY in the constitution...
This stance has the same flavor as the teabaggers advocating the scrapping of senators being democratically elected. Every day, these idiots who consider themselves to be ideologically pure show themselves to be no better than the average Mussolini fascist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SOS ICEBERG
May 28, 2010 9:57 AM
Contemptible douchebag.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
May 28, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to SOS ICEBERG
Petulant Prick!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 28, 2010 10:32 PM in reply to Leftflank
How about you both settle on the epithet the Ultimate Enema ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thepoliticalcat
May 30, 2010 2:43 PM in reply to AJM
Enemas have documented health benefits. If nothing else, they permit your doctor to lay you face down on a table and root around in your colon with less ick and squick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LJG
May 28, 2010 9:59 AM
Does Paul, as a libertarian, think the government has a right to tell employers they can't hire illegal immigrants? Or does he believe in hands off?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 4:10 AM in reply to LJG
Excellent question! Though I doubt Rand Paul will ever do another interview with anyone who might actually ask it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe
May 28, 2010 10:03 AM
Ayn Rand Paul is like a broken cuckoo clock that won't shut up. Every time he opens his mouth, he only makes me give more $$$ to Conway!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rip
May 28, 2010 10:05 AM
Well there goes the Kentucky Latino vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 4:23 AM in reply to rip
Yeah, all two of 'em.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sheleigh
May 28, 2010 10:05 AM
"UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IN TEXAS: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy" should be required reading before any politician is allowed comment on immigration. Its the first comprehensive (and the only one I know of) that studies the WHOLE effect of illegal immigration. Findings - in 2005, TX would have lost $17.7 billion in gross state product in the absence of illegal aliens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Anthony Thomas
May 28, 2010 10:08 AM
You should fix this article. A sentence toward the end that says Republicans want to change the Constitution with a law that's "unconstitutional" doesn't make sense. Either they are proposing to change the Constitution (which requires an amendment to the Constitution) or they are proposing a simple law that doesn't change the Constitution. The law could be "unconstitutional," but amending the Constitution isn't unconstitutional unless, I suppose, the amendment is in conflict with the Constitution itself. The 14th Amendment can be negated, just like the Prohibition amendment was overridden by a subsequent repeal amendment. What your reporter is trying to say is that Republicans are proposing a change in the law, not to "change this part of the Constitution," which would require a Constitutional amendment.
I have to say--as a big lefty and Obama supporter and loather of Republican politics--that this Rand Paul suggestion is not "out there" or wildly radical to most Americans with common sense. Hard to see how it's crazy to disagree with the idea that someone can come here illegally, have a baby, and should automatically have it become a U.S. citizen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
May 28, 2010 11:15 AM in reply to Anthony Thomas
It is worth noting that all countries in the European Union deny citizenship to children born in the country to illegal immigrants. That said, the Constitution is the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has held since the 19th Century that ALL children born on US soil are American citizens automatically.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kill_the_wabbit
May 28, 2010 12:40 PM in reply to El Puerco
Ummmm... If the child would be otherwise stateless, France and Belgium anyhow grant citizenship. It has nothing to do with the parents' legal status.
So if the parents are illegal/undocumented but their home country's/countries' laws grant junior citizenship, the kids wouldn't automatically be French unless the kids requested it (often by age 16 or 18). But if the parents were illegal/undocumented, had a kid in Belgium, that kid would be Belgian if the kid would otherwise be stateless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
May 28, 2010 5:17 PM in reply to kill_the_wabbit
Sorry, I missed a couple of exceptions. In either case, EU countried DO NOT automatically grant citizenship, as is the case in the US.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
May 31, 2010 2:22 AM in reply to El Puerco
But Repukes don't want to be like, European, you know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
May 28, 2010 5:26 PM in reply to kill_the_wabbit
By the way, since 1994 it is illegal in France to aid an illegal immigrant.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/socialeurope/fighting-illegal-immigration-return-directive/article-174876
I am not defending Paul, but merely pointing out that the US is hardly alone and in fact quite generous in its citizenship laws.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
May 28, 2010 5:32 PM in reply to kill_the_wabbit
You might take a look at this:
http://www.immigrationcitizenship.eu/2005/12/belgian-citizenship.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kill_the_wabbit
May 28, 2010 8:18 PM in reply to El Puerco
Cool. I know that most countries are far fussier about granting nationality/citizenship. But I had a sense that rules surrounding the issue often exist in a much grayer area than ours. (Which probably has something to do with our nationality/citizenship rules being broadly presented in a constitution dating from the 1700s.)
Point being, many EU countries seem to make some exceptions for children born in—and living in—their countries. Which for most situations seems like a reasonable and civilized thing to do.
Out of curiosity, I checked the Wikipedia article on Mexico's citizenship laws, and children born in Mexico *or* to Mexican nationals (regardless of where they're born) seem to receive Mexican citizenship automatically. Which is much more like the U.S. model.
Maybe it's a New World thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
May 28, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to Anthony Thomas
Sounds reasonable but what do we do with someone whose parents came here illegally?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Netgk
May 28, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to expat46
Answer: We deport the illegal parents and any underage offspring, even if the offspring are US citizens under our ridiculous laws. That way, we can't be accused of "splitting up families." If they're underage, they belong with their parents, and their parents belong in their own country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
May 31, 2010 2:23 AM in reply to Netgk
Except Alien Gonzales, of course.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 28, 2010 10:37 PM in reply to Anthony Thomas
As ludicrous as it sounds these rethuglicans trying to get this changed without using the Constitutional Amendment process. Presumptively because they know they couldn't get it passed. What they have done instead is to take an ordinary bill and attempt to specify how the Constitutional provision at issue should be interpreted. But that is the business of the Judicial Branch -- not the legislative branch. So even if they were right about how the provision should be interpreted -- which they are not -- the method they are using is itself unconstitutional. So they have violated their oath of office.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 4:14 AM in reply to Anthony Thomas
I stumbled over that, too, but after reading it over a couple of times, I think what Jillian was trying to say was that you cannot amend the Constitution by passing legislation; they have to pass an amdendment (with a 2/3 vote in each house) and then submit it to the states for ratification. Or call a Constitutional Convention.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
May 28, 2010 10:09 AM
Rand Paul. The gift that keeps on giving. TO THE DEMOCRATS!!!
He'll get elected. Quit after a year and 1/2. Then write books about how much our government sucks and go on the ultra-right wing lecture circuit.
Sarah P. has already shown folks like Paul the way to fame and fortune.
He's on his way!!!!
I can see it now.
"Out of the backwoods of Kentucky comes a MAN!!!! RAND MAN!!! A MAN like no other. Out to save America from itself!! FOR TRUE Americans!!!!"
"Hi!!! My name is Rand Paul! Books on sale as you exit!!"
LOL!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DanF
May 28, 2010 10:12 AM
Sure ... but who's gonna break the bad news to Michelle Malkin?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
May 28, 2010 11:54 AM in reply to DanF
good one
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Captain
May 28, 2010 10:18 AM
Wait a minute, this gets more ridiculous the more I think about it. So for Paul, the government has no business telling private individuals, or businesses weather or not they can discriminate based on race. Yet the government apparently also has to enforce some kind of "demographic" quota????? He can't even be a plain old crazy strait up libertarian right!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thmoore
May 28, 2010 10:19 AM
I think there's a factual error in the article -- "Others have suggested that the U.S. should change this part of the Constitution, including 90 House Republicans who have co-sponsored a bill that seeks to do just that."
The bill that 90 House Republicans support would just be a law, not a constitutional amendment. A congressionally passed law can violate the Constitution, and that one almost certainly would.
However, a constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional. If Congress proposed an amendment, and the states ratified it, even if it were something as appalling as re-instituting slavery, it would be constitutional by definition, since it would be part of the Constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
May 28, 2010 10:44 AM in reply to thmoore
But the point is accurate.
At least 90 republican house members are with Paul on this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
May 28, 2010 5:21 PM in reply to cinesimon
No, it's not accurate. The article says that they are trying to change the Constitution. This requires an amendment. They are not trying to pass an amendment, but rather a regular law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NotBornEveryMinute
May 28, 2010 7:33 PM in reply to hunter
What is proposed is definitely not a constitutional amendment. It's a bill that seeks to define the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction" found in the 14th Amendment. IANAL, but it seems clear to me that you can't modify, even to clarify, constitutional language by statute, but that it requires an amendment. It's unconstitutional to attempt to amend the Constitution except by passing an actual amendment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scavok
May 28, 2010 10:28 AM
Rand, like many good Sons of the South, is actually referring to the Confederate Constitution, which specifically prohibits the introduction of slaves from foreign countries. Slave were to be grown domestically.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 4:22 AM in reply to scavok
Yeah, the Southern slaveholders didn't want the price they could get for their slaves to be depressed by foreign competition.
I am not making this up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Zug
May 28, 2010 10:29 AM
Those darn brown people, always going with the Democrats.
Wonder why that is?
Hmmmmm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davcbr
May 28, 2010 10:31 AM
...the proportion of Mexican immigrants that register as Democrats is 3-to-1, so of course "the Democrat Party is for easy citizenship."
free markets, you know? And citizens DO have the right to vote, no?
He's defining himself as a loser.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 28, 2010 10:40 PM in reply to davcbr
And of course the ReThuglicans oppose it -- purely on principle of course!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sunshinedem
May 28, 2010 10:31 AM
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
(As long as you are white, male, rich and republican.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
May 31, 2010 2:27 AM in reply to sunshinedem
Give me your rich, well connected, yearning markets free ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zen Bonobo
May 28, 2010 10:37 AM
Let Rand Paul speak. He will be known by what he speaks as a shadow of the dark and limited state of the popular mind in the US that is devoid of fearless compassion and melanin free judgment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tzal
May 28, 2010 10:39 AM
Since this is say crazy shit day, let me rebut by pointing out that latina women are really hot. Please let the girls stay. Also, persian women.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
radudeATL
May 28, 2010 10:43 AM
Well, you have to give the Republican party credit for diversifying themselves. They're going from a party completely dominated by old, crazy white men, to a party that now includes young-ish, even crazier white men...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CherStoleMyFace
May 28, 2010 10:50 AM
Keep talking Rand, we all await your next missive, we will stifle our impulse to laugh and continue to listen closely and publicize widely your view of "How the World Should Work".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Arundhati
May 28, 2010 10:52 AM
Dr. Rand Paul is absolutely right about the immigration issue. The democrat party is wrong & subversive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
May 28, 2010 5:26 PM in reply to Arundhati
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Subversive enough for you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 4:25 AM in reply to hunter
The 14th Amendment is arguably the most radical part of the Constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 4:26 AM in reply to slb
I should add that I like that about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WillWrite4Food
May 28, 2010 10:55 AM
On Russian TV? Is there a huge Russian-American voting bloc in Kentucky that I'm unaware of?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
May 28, 2010 10:55 AM
Hmmm... *most* politicians would typically try to avoid following up comments about the Civil Rights Act with a call to repeal the 14th Amendment. :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stratdude
May 28, 2010 10:56 AM
Russia — sounds like a good place for un-American tools of paul's ilk who can't be bothered with the parts of the Constitution that check their racism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
valgal
May 28, 2010 10:57 AM
Why is he talking to a Russian station? Why would the Russians want to talk to him, much less know who he is? WTF?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
May 28, 2010 11:16 AM in reply to valgal
Because he even finds the stenographers that make up the US media too likely to point out that he's batshit crazy. He needs to go to a country where media people who make waves end up dead in order to feel safe giving an interview. Besides, Russia Today feeds the crazy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sniffit
May 28, 2010 11:02 AM
Randroid malfunction.
Let's translate: "These freekin' brownies keep registering as Democrats, so we need to keep them the frig out of the country and make it virtually impossible for them to become citizens."
It's pretty much the same thing we're seeing with the TX board of education and their attempt to skew history conservative: "Holy crap!!! They're on to us!!! Reality doesn't work the way our ideology says and the younger generation is figuring it out!!! Where's the lipstick?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jim C
May 28, 2010 11:24 AM
And of course, when they speak of "anchor babies," the visual is an two illegal adults and an infant. However, such a change to the constitution would not be limited to just infants. Adults born of illegal immigrant parents would also fall under this citizenship exception.
Example: A U.S. born adult in the 40s or 50s whose parents entered the country illegally (and never altered that status), would also lose their citizenship. This person would have been a legal citizen of the U.S. all their lives... paid taxes, paid into social security, may own a home, may own a business, may have children and grandchildren in this country, etc. Now all of a sudden, because of something in which they bear no responsibility, their citizenship is removed (and I say "removed" rather than "revoked" since there was never a time in their lives in which they weren't U.S. citizens).
I don't see how they can write an amendment that would deal with this issue fairly or equitably. Although, that said, I don't think the GrOPe really gives a fart if it's dealt with fairly or equitably as the important thing for them as of late is pandering the most vile and disgusting section of their teabagger base.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CyberDuckie
May 28, 2010 9:41 PM in reply to Jim C
"...such a change to the constitution would not be limited to just infants. Adults born of illegal immigrant parents would also fall under this citizenship exception."
A very valid point. I wonder how many supporters of Dr. Paul understand that (if enacted on a completely equal basis) this law would not be limited specifically to "brown" people? o0
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
yalej
May 28, 2010 11:33 AM
United States vs. Wong Kim Ark only held that children born to *legal* residents of the U.S. are citizens of the U.S. (as long as they weren't subject to a foreign power). It did NOT hold that *any* child born in the U.S. is a citizen of the U.S.
A law barring citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants is not prima facie unconstitutional. It would have to be tested in court. Such a law does not seem unreasonable to me, at least from a prospective standpoint. Whether such a law, if constitutional, could apply to children or adults born prior to its passage is a separate issue.
Being a (legal) immigrant myself, I am constantly amazed at the support that illegal immigration gets from liberal circles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
May 28, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to yalej
Obviously you haven't read the opinion or didn't understand it. It absolutely does not restrict its rationale to children of legal immigrants. True, it does not specifically mention illegal immigrants (probably by virtue of the fact that there were basically nonexistent) but it doesn't exclude them either, and the line of reasoning it uses flows directly from the clear verbiage of the 14th amendment. As such it clearly establishes jus soli for all children born on US soil.
In simpler terms, you seem to think that when they said "if you're born here you're a citizen" instead of "if you're born here you're a citizen even if your parents weren't here legally" they somehow implicitly added the converse restriction. That's not right; if they wanted to add a restriction, they needed to explicitly say so, and they didn't. It's kind of funny to take such a line of reasoning to its conclusion: the court also didn't mention people named "Hunter." Am I to therefore assume that they did not decide that people named "Hunter" are citizens if they are born here?*
Furthermore there have been several cases since then (such as Plyler v. Doe) which did go into those details, and always they have found that the 14th is completely clear...as should anyone who can read the very simple first sentence of the amendment.
*Just for the record, my parents were both citizens, so I should be safe from such interpretations. That's a relief...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 4:35 AM in reply to hunter
In fact, the Court in Plyer v. Doe, citing Wong explicitly precluded making any distinction between legal and illegal immigrants so far as the "subject to the juridiction thereof" clause in the 14th Amendment was concerned.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 28, 2010 10:48 PM in reply to yalej
Because opposition to illegal immigrants in our country has often been a cover for very ugly ethnic and racial prejudices.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
1audiofile
May 28, 2010 11:44 AM
Rand Paul must also want to demolish the Statue of Liberty because it has that offensive invitation to poor people from foreign countries to come here to live. It must drive him crazy, but then it is a very short trip.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
May 28, 2010 11:45 AM
"The real problem, Paul said, is that the U.S. "shouldn't provide an easy route to citizenship" because of "demographics."
Everytime they open their mouths they give themselves away. It's not about deficits. It's not about national security. It's about race and the approaching end of the white majority. Stop being polite with these assholes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
D Mac
May 28, 2010 12:23 PM
If these Children can play basketball for the University of
Kentucky and win a National Championship we will make them
citizens, but only after they Win....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Linda in Maryland
May 28, 2010 12:35 PM
So, is this retroactive? How far back does R. Paul want to go with this? My grandmother was "illegal" in 1919 after WWI in Europe although my grandfather was "legal". And then US customs at Ellis Island changed the spelling of their first and last names! So not only was she illegal, she was issued a government sanctioned alias! And since according to R.Paul, my late father was illegal (although born in NYC), wouldn't that make me illegal or non-existent or something, too? Where does this bozo's thinking end up? Shall I start looking for a new home in Slovakia or Hungary or whatever the heck the place was in 1919?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mezcalero
May 28, 2010 12:52 PM in reply to Linda in Maryland
May ad well. I was taught that being a good conservative American had to do with individual choice, up from your bootstraps, an all that. Regardless of the choices of our parents and grandparents.
According to guys like Rand Paul, though, illegal immigration is such a big problem that strippping a huge section of the population of their citizenship, and denying others the same, is the solution. Apparently its worked wonders in Europe, since there are no illegal immigrants there anymore.
As a good American, we should willingly give up our citizenship for the good of Real 'Murrica.
Logical!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
D Mac
May 28, 2010 12:36 PM
Do these Children, who thought they were citizens of
the United States and were killed in Vietnam, or Iraq,
or, or, or, Do they get a DO OVER ??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mezcalero
May 28, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to D Mac
Logical!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Avvocato
May 28, 2010 1:35 PM
Jillian: Despite what your "expert" says, such a law would not be "clearly" unconstitutional. For example children (born in the US) of foreign diplomats are NOT US citizens by birth (by statute). Would you expert argue they should be despite the statute?
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, SCOTUS ruled that a person who is born in the United States of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Although any language in this case suggests the opinion and rationale could be expanded to include the children of illegal immigrants, this would be mere dicta as Wong's parents were in the country legally. The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark. Until the 20th century there was no "legality / illegality" which really arose as quotas became important.
SCOTUS has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment, although it has generally been ASSUMED that they are.
The case to determine citizenship under the proposed statute would be interesting indeed but the outcome would be far from certain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
May 28, 2010 2:47 PM in reply to Avvocato
Despite knowing the buzzword dicta, you are confused. As you note there was no such thing as an "illegal" immigrant at the time of ratification of the 14th Amemdment, as the United States had no such legal classification. As a result, the language of the Consitution cannot be read to draw a distinction that it could not have even considered. No strict constructionalist could support your interpretation, and no living document interpretivist would support it given the historical treatment of all children born in this country. There's no valid source of Constitutional interpretation for your view. So unless you represent a sui generis group of legal experts and judges that I'm not familiar with, you are pretty much speaking for yourself and a handful of people well outside of the mainstream.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
May 28, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to Avvocato
That's just downright asinine. First off, this business:
For example children (born in the US) of foreign diplomats are NOT US citizens by birth (by statute). Would you expert argue they should be despite the statute?
She didn't argue that at all. And in fact the 14th amendment specifically excludes those children, because their parents are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, which is a specified requirement. Illegal immigrants are subject to US jurisdiction and are thus not excluded.
More importantly, you are making an absurd argument with respect to Wong. You freely state that the court held that all people born here are citizens. Then you turn around and say that because they didn't specifically address illegal aliens, that they aren't covered by the decision. That's ridiculous. They said "all people." They didn't say "all people except illegal immigrants." The court doesn't have to enumerate every group that's included in "all people." You are manufacturing an exclusion out of nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Liquid Reigns
May 29, 2010 1:17 AM in reply to hunter
The key words in Wong Kim Ark vs US are: permanently domiciled, to understand the meaning of permanently domiciled, look to the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Thus giving credence to Wong Kim Arks parents having been permanently domiciled here as legal immigrants during his birth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
May 28, 2010 2:11 PM
Ummm, this is also SETTLED LAW - United States v. Wong Kim Ark back in 1898. In FACT, back during the big scare that the Western US was being overrun by Chinese, congress passed the "Chinese Exclusion Act," and this supreme court act struck down a portion of it.
And Rand Paul's great, great (possibly one more great) grandparents emigrated from Germany, in the 1800's. If it's found that they were to have immigrated illegaly, or if no one can find the documents that they came to the US legally, would that nullify citizenship for the entire Paul family, banning Rand Paul for running for office? This proposed law makes no sense.
m65 oral jelly
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
May 28, 2010 2:11 PM
The children of foreign diplomats and enemy combatants are excluded. Everybody else is in except maybe Native Americans if they don't want to be. See Wong Kim Ark and the Slaughter House Cases. Also Green Bag article by former Clarence Thomas clerk and current Solictor General of Texas. See also INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985), Supreme Court is unanimous: child of illegal immigrants is a 14th Amendment U.S. citizen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 28, 2010 2:41 PM
In a world so oft bereft of hope, the fact that so many yearn to give their children a better life by coming to America and birthing them here, should make all of us proud.
Yet, these contemporary Know Nothings want to extinguish that tiny light of hope, in their desperation to establish an identity of their own, as if that child somehow takes that from them.
Anyone else get the feeling that there a lot of deep-seated personal insecurity on the part of these pseudo-patriots? And THAT is what the prejudice that drives them to forget what our nation is really all about, so deep seated that it compels them to deny hope to the unborn whose future would be so much brighter in our land.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 28, 2010 2:50 PM
does this mean that all early immigrants to American soil who pre-date our becoming a nation are also illegal?
My Scottish and English ancestors came here 140 years before the revolution, when we were an English colony.
Not a one of those original family members was a citizen of the US, throughout their own lives.
Does that mean I'm supposed to go back to Scotland?
I know, pretzel logic, but you get my point. We're all immigrants on this bus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 28, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to JEP07
It is quite true, though, not ONE of the Mayflower families who came here in the first place could call themselves "U.S. citizens."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Netgk
May 28, 2010 2:54 PM
Why should we grant citizenship just because two illegals had sex? I'm a pro-environment, pro-choice, pretty solid Democrat, and I detest Rand Paul, but I completely agree with him here. Illegals are coming over here and having their "anchor babies" so that they can stay here. It's a huge motivation for them to break our laws and come here. And then if we try to deport only the parents (the illegals), we're accused of "splitting up families." Well boo damn hoo. There's no reason why their kids should automatically be given one of the most valuable possessions on Earth - US citizenship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 28, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to Netgk
epeat, not ONE of the Mayflower families who came here in the first place could call themselves "U.S. citizens."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 28, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to JEP07
...kinda makes this sentence sound a bit ignorant, huh?
"There's no reason why their kids should automatically be given one of the most valuable possessions on Earth - US citizenship"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Netgk
May 28, 2010 3:33 PM in reply to JEP07
JEP07 - Not really. You give yourself too much credit. That was the law then. It's still the law now. That doesn't make it right for today's USA. Back then they had lots of space. Now we don't. It's time to change the laws.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CyberDuckie
May 28, 2010 10:40 PM in reply to Netgk
Then how far, exactly, would you go back? Just far enough so that your ancestors are included as citizens?
You do realize that a repeal of this amendment would have to include people who have been here for decades as legal citizens, from white to black and everything in between, right? And just how do you propose we pay for the capture, detention and deportation of what could amount to hundreds of thousands of people?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 29, 2010 1:46 PM in reply to Netgk
"Back then they had lots of space. Now we don't."
Oh really?
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?op=1&view=all&subj=303715387841&aid=-1&pid=30969377&id=1022703628&oid=303715387841
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 29, 2010 2:10 PM in reply to JEP07
oops
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?op=1&view=all&subj=303715387841&aid=-1&pid=30969377&id=1022703628&oid=303715387841
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
May 28, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to Netgk
Hozabout because the Constitution (specifically section 1 of the 14th Amendment) says so? To wit:
Seems pretty clear to me. Unless of course you're arguing that children of illegal immigrants aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Netgk
May 28, 2010 4:02 PM in reply to cwnidog
cwnidog - Things change. That's why our founding fathers allowed for changes to the Constitution. Slavery was allowed back then. Now it's not. Back then they had lots of space. Now we don't. It's time to change the laws.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
May 28, 2010 9:07 PM in reply to Netgk
You're missing the point. You statement was "There's no reason why their kids should automatically be given one of the most valuable possessions on Earth - US citizenship.". I gave you the reason.
If you don't like the way the Constitution reads, that's just fine, but you don't get to make it go away by just changing a law, you'll need to amend the Constitution.
I'm aware that a lot of other countries don't grant citizenship to anyone born on their soil, but I think that the fact that we do is one of our strengths, not a weakness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
May 28, 2010 2:56 PM
Do the idiots acting like citizenship for the native-born children of immigrants is some kind of loophole not realize that the 14th Amendment actually predates the existence of ANY federal immigration law?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 28, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
repeat, not ONE of the Mayflower families who came here in the first place could call themselves "U.S. citizens."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 28, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to JEP07
and extrapolating that out, shouldn't we deny citizenship to everyone who traces their lineage back to Tories who stayed in the "U.S." after the revolutionary war?
Now there's an interesting backtrack.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 28, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to JEP07
and another thing... why can't I claim that Randy's German antecedents came over here and took my Scottish American ancestors' jobs away?
I mean, if we are tracing lineage, Randy's "people" (you all know I'm snarkin', but bear with me) came here for free land, not Freedom, like mine did.
So what did they earn? None of his ancestors died in the Revolutionary War, more than one of mine did, I have the papers.
Did his "people" come over to fight in the Civil War? Lost of "Dutch" did just that, and they are rightfully proud of it. But who let them in? It was those very Germans who helped Blair and Lyons whoop up on my southern-fried Scottish-blood 2nd cousins in St Louis at the outset of the Civil War. And those same Germans were the very "fer'ners" the Know Nothings wanted banned from entering the U.S. in the first place.
The total disconnect between Rand Paul and his own immigrant roots should make us all stop and wonder how this arrogant poser has the gall to demand "his America" not be tainted by the very process that brought him (and all of us) here in the first place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Netgk
May 28, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to Fried Chicken Lover
Fried Chicken: Do you not realize that things change? That's why our founding fathers allowed for changes to the Constitution. Slavery was allowed back then. Now it's not. Back then they had lots of space. Now we don't. It's time to change the laws.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
May 28, 2010 9:57 PM in reply to Netgk
If that were the perspective of the types like Rand Paul on this issue, then they'd be calling for a constitutional amendment, rather than proposing something that is plainly unconstitutional.
People born here are citizens. Period. You want to change it, that's an amendment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 4:49 AM in reply to Netgk
You're overlooking the fact that what outlaws slavery now is a Constitutional Amendment. You want to alter the wording of the 14th Amendment, then you need to go through the process of amending the Constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Packerfanchick
May 28, 2010 2:57 PM
Guess it is time to take the Statue of Liberty down, it no longer has meaning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Netgk
May 28, 2010 6:15 PM in reply to Packerfanchick
Packerfanchick - Wrong. The Statue of Liberty would still have meaning for legal immigrants. We would just eliminate the ridiculous practice of people coming here illegally and using babies to avoid deportation. The Statue of Liberty doesn't say, "Come here and break our laws."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 28, 2010 10:57 PM in reply to Netgk
If I do something wrong, should you be punished for it?
What if your parents did something wrong? Your proposal would be an unjust and immoral way for America to behave.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eb123
May 28, 2010 3:01 PM
If Paul gets his way, people in Arizona will not only have to walk around with their own birth certificates but also that of their parents, or at least proof that their parents were legal immigrants at the time of their birth. Imagine that! How complicated if, say, the parents are still alive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 28, 2010 3:32 PM
BTW, "Gabriel Rene Paul" was a general for THE UNION in the civil war, born in St. Louis, he was the grandson of one of Napolean's staff officers. He was a brigadier general at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, where he was severely wounded and had to retire from the military.
Don't know if he's related to Rand Paul, but it is good to know not all the Pauls were/are cursed with bigotry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 28, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to JEP07
...woe to anyone who proves the Pauls come from French stock!
Oh, the shameful embarrassment of it all!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Netgk
May 28, 2010 5:06 PM in reply to JEP07
Sure, JEP07, wanting to keep out illegal immigrants and their kids is BIGOTRY. Huh? This would apply to everyone: whites, blacks, and all others. HOW IS THIS BIGOTRY? I'll answer for you: "Duh...it's cuz...well...duh...duh...duh...." Oh, and don't forget: "Duh."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 28, 2010 11:00 PM in reply to Netgk
Because one form of bigotry is Nativism -- despising anyone who not is already part of your country.
I've got mine, buddy, I'm drawing up the ladder.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
May 28, 2010 3:50 PM
All of Rand's isuues connect & not one of them is about "WHITE PEOPLE". No comments about financial reform or Health Care. He is a dang Doctor, for gad sakes. No Kentucky issues or Liberterianism vs. repubelicanism stances, conservativism over tea-baggerism rants. That one really gets me. Without hesitation, he immediately jumped in bed with the big government, unitarian authority, impose their shit on our lives, established & establishment, political machine. No grass roots effort even considered. 100% poser & definitely a TBINO.
Aynd, Rand also has all the attributes of a spoiled child. He, just wants what He, wants, is used to getting it & to Hell with every body else.
Rand Paul coming to a theater near you soon, starring in & as, "The 40 Year Old Brat".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bloggin
May 28, 2010 3:58 PM
You can't take citizenship from American citizens.
However, Immigration Reform needs to fix the ability for a child of a non-citizen from automatically becoming a citizen, just because the child was born on American soil.
It's like someone breaking into your home, but if they have a meal, they now can live there forever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 28, 2010 11:02 PM in reply to Bloggin
If you think you have support for changing the Constitution to support your bigotry -- go for it. Just don't try to evade the amendment process unconstitutionally.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 29, 2010 4:55 AM in reply to Bloggin
So now you also want to exclude the US-born children of legal aliens as well from being granted citizenship? Oh, lovely, now we are getting closer to being like Japan, which has a permanent underclass of Japanese-born people who are denied citizenship because of their Korean ancestry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Netgk
May 28, 2010 5:11 PM
Bloggin - You got that right! I'm a Democrat, but I fully agree that runaway immigration is unhealthy for any country, and ours is no different. Given our current level of population, it is foolish to continue allowing "anchor babies."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dr.Know
May 28, 2010 5:27 PM
More proof that partisan politics are just a red herring to keep us from talking to each other and tackling the real IMPORTANT issues.
Lots of (D)'s posting here, most not railing FOR anchor babies, but instead using the issue to throw barbs at the (R)'s. Of course despite the fact that Hispanics/Latinos overwhelmingly register as (D)- it doesn't matter to the (R)'s in power. The (R)'s may be losing votes, but their buddies in Big Business are thrilled to have the cheap labor to increase profit margins.
The reality is that the (R)'s tried for an amnesty in 2007, but it was so unpopular with the populace that it was shelved. The (D)'s may make a run at it this time, and the (R)'s might have their grumpy "we hate (D)'s" faces on, but they want to protect their stream of cheap, exploitable labor coming in despite what party they might register for if they become or produce citizens. Then there's the $$ that goes to the MultiNational Corporations for each of the poorly legally represented brown person that ends up in the booming business of Privatized Prisons. And the business connections between both (D)'s & (R)'s with the Mexican Upper Crust (including the governing class) that is happily printing maps and instructions on how to sneak into the US, and distributing them to the social strata that they'd rather not live with- not to mention the large greymarket economy built on transferring, and housing funds from the US back to the Mexican economy.
Don't kid yourselves, both the (D)'s and the (R)'s want exactly the same thing regarding immigration reform/etc , although often for different reasons. All of this DESPITE poll after poll that demonstrate that Americans of ALL shapes, sizes, colors, hues, are overwhelmingly against Congresses repeated runs at amnesty.
But the Powers That Be will continue to keep trying to open the floodgates, and if they can't, they'll make sure to keep the doors open just a hair- and people will continue to die at the hands of coyotes, or in the desert. Kidnappings & killings on BOTH sides of the river in border towns will continue to rise as Mexico continues it's slide into corruption as it's greatest national resource and stabilizing force makes a (Mexican gov't mapped) run for streets paved with gold, only to find all along
that those pave stones are just a crumbling infrastructure made to look good from a distance by cheap spray paint.
And it's doubtful that they'll put an end to the anchor baby thing, but for those of you who've mentally masturbated about how far it would be retroactive to, you've wasted your time attempting to look clever. Such actions almost universally grandfather in all of the current as to save time attempting to enforce the mess thats already been made.
I'm sure someone will attempt to call me racist, or race hater, or pigeonhole me with neocon teabagging (in the original sense of the verb) nuts *heh* like the Pauls. Let me save you the time, I suffer neither from the self-importance of the neoconservative xtians, nor from the white guilt of the American liberal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
akatla
May 28, 2010 7:07 PM in reply to Dr.Know
I tend to agree with facets of this. It is un-deniable that the power structure on both sides of the border benefits from keeping the status quo. If Mexico and other countries were better towards their citizens, they would all prefer to stay there in the land they truly love with their families. Imagine how difficult it is to leave everything you know, including your family, for a slim chance at success in a far-away place that hates you. Immigrants have more courage and resourcefulness than any of us care to admit, and are willing to suffer alot more than any of us cares to. How many of you are willing to work the fields all day, sell flowers on a corner, or sit in front of Home Depot begging for work? Not a goddam one!!! I think it was the science fiction writer Robert Heinlein that said only the best emigrate. The rest are willing to accept the way things are and thus are not true survivors. If you look at it dispassionately, you may see he is right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
windowpane
May 28, 2010 5:55 PM
If we are going to go as far as Paul suggests, why not deny citizenship to children of foreigners that are in the U.S. on student Visas? We could do with a few less Michele Malkins...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Netgk
May 28, 2010 6:25 PM
Windowpane: Agreed!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
akatla
May 28, 2010 6:52 PM
My wife came here illegally, leaving a war zone our President Reagan created. We met and married 22 years ago and she is a legal resident. I brought her two kids up legally, through the auspices of our government. When they finished their studies and became citizens was a very proud day for all of us. Bring it on, Dr. Paul...come for my kids if you dare. This is the first time I've ever been ashamed to have been born in Kentucky.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CyberDuckie
May 28, 2010 11:00 PM in reply to akatla
That brings up another good point. I've read several remarks here by people saying the Constitution should be changed simply because we don't have the space anymore. However, they're okay with people coming here legally....even though we "don't have the space."
But what about refugees? People who enter our country initially illegally after escaping a war zone or politically hostile government and seek amnesty from persecution, oppression and/or violence. Do we allow them to stay...even though we "don't have the space." Or do we ship them back to the environment that they risked life and limb to flee? That seems to be a fuzzy gray area in the argument...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mutton Jeff
May 29, 2010 12:28 PM in reply to akatla
He wouldn't come for your kids - they're naturalized citizens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WorkinJoe
May 28, 2010 9:38 PM
So Rand Paul considers the Constitution to be "defective?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 28, 2010 11:11 PM
Well -- anybody wondering just how much Rand was suffering because sticking to his principles enabled racism now has an answer. It's consistent with the fact that his Dad published a paper with racist articles over his signature for years and didn's have a clue that was happening. Some children born in this country ought to be deported because of 'demographics' and because they will vote Democratic.
Rand Paul is a racist pure and simple.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
May 29, 2010 12:31 AM
Obviously you haven't read the opinion or didn't understand it. It absolutely does not restrict its rationale to children of legal immigrants. True, it does not specifically mention illegal immigrants (probably by virtue of the fact that there were basically nonexistent) but it doesn't exclude them either, and the line of reasoning it uses flows directly from the clear verbiage of the 14th amendment. As such it clearly establishes jus soli for all children born on US soil.
In simpler terms, you seem to think that when they said "if you're born here you're a citizen" instead of "if you're born here you're a citizen even if your parents weren't here legally" they somehow implicitly added the converse restriction. That's not right; if they wanted to add a restriction, they needed to explicitly say so, and they didn't. It's kind of funny to take such a line of reasoning to its conclusion: the court also didn't mention people named "Hunter." Am I to therefore assume that they did not decide that people named "Hunter" are citizens if they are born here?
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sci57
May 29, 2010 1:29 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if a movement begins to repeal the 14th amendment. I wonder what percentage of US citizens support Paul's position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
StewartIII
May 29, 2010 7:10 AM
Hot Air| New Rand Paul “scandal”: We shouldn’t have birthright citizenship for illegals
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/28/new-rand-paul-scandal-we-shouldnt-have-birthright-citizenship/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Subroutine
May 29, 2010 11:34 AM
Hey, it might be a good idea.....we finally get rid of Michelle Malkin...and her entire family she smuggled in to the U.S.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ndolan622
May 29, 2010 1:42 PM
I tend to agree with Paul in this one issue. The intent at that time was to include the children of slaves...not what is occuring now.
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Anasazi
May 29, 2010 7:40 PM
Rand Paul, the Strict Constitutionalists, and the Republican Party don't follow the Constitution. They want the country to follow Natural Law. Natural Law is what a group of white "Christian" men and their like-thinking lackeys want us to do, i.e. a country ruled by men, not laws - the essence of unconstitutional rule.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shoestrade74
May 29, 2010 10:28 PM
http://www.shoes2.us/products/NIKE-SHOX-SHOES-116-s-1.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
May 30, 2010 11:32 AM
If we're going to go down that road, why not go all the way? Some legal immigrants kids, should not be US citizens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
May 30, 2010 1:37 PM
i personally am offended by the paul statement, "we have come to take our government back?" back from whom? the overwhelming majority of americans who elected this president? i am neither a second class citizen, an african american or illegal nor a member of acorn. my family's roots go back to the 1600s in this country, we homesteaded missouri, we have fought in every war this country has fought and i worked for and voted for this president.
if the citizens of kentucky want to elect this man that's their choice; but don't act like they and they alone are the true americans!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
May 31, 2010 2:34 AM in reply to sbv
You know what Rand and the Teabaggers mean. They want to take the government back from the nigger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?