TPMDC
Rand Paul Wants Amendment To Deny Citizenship To Illegals' Kids
KY-SEN candidate Rand Paul (R)
Share
Send to a friend!
Senate candidate Rand Paul (R-KY), in an interview this week with Right Wing News, doubled down on his assertion that the children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States should not be citizens.
In the new interview, Paul said he believes the courts should review whether the Fourteenth Amendment actually grants citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. And if they decide it does, he said, we should amend the Constitution.
"I also think that we need to have the courts review whether or not -- if you break the law to come into the U.S. -- whether your child would be a citizen just by being born here," he said. "The Fourteenth Amendment actually says that you will be a citizen as long as you are under the jurisdiction of the United States. Many argue that these children that are born to illegal aliens are really still under the jurisdiction of the Mexican government. I think we need to fight that out in the courts."
And if the courts rule against such a challenge?
"If we lose, then I think we should amend the Constitution because I don't think the 14th amendment was meant to apply to illegal aliens," Paul said. "It was meant to apply to the children of slaves."
The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part, "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."
There has been more talk of denying citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants in some anti-immigration circles. Arizona Republicans, for example, are likely to introduce a bill this fall that would deny citizenship to such children, known by some as "anchor babies."
Last month, Paul told a Russian TV station that the practice of granting citizenship to all children born in the U.S., even if their parents are in the country illegally, "should stop."
(H/T The Hill)
Comments (156) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Schmed
June 24, 2010 2:38 PM
"It was meant to apply to the children of slaves."
Not that it would matter to him and his racism, but has anyone informed Dr. Paul that all of the slaves and their children were got their rights with the 13th Amendment?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
June 24, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to Schmed
That's not true.
The Thirteenth Amendment merely outlawed slavery (and involuntary servitude). It did not say that the former slaves had any particular rights, and (more to the point) it did not grant them citizenship.
Congress passed a law, several months after the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, granting citizenship to former slaves.
The Fourteenth Amendment, a couple years after that, essentially made that law permanent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
June 24, 2010 4:15 PM in reply to Zell
I beg to differ. While the 14th Amendment ratified their de jure status as citizens, they became de facto with the 13th Amendment. Even though prior to the 14th Amendment citizenship was never defined, it would be difficult (at best) to say that freemen were not citizens. Consequently, it would follow that anyone who became free gained the same status as those who were already free and thus deemed citizens. The 14th Amendment(and subsequent others) replaced theoretical assumptions with a legal definition that was sorely lacking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkepticalCidada
June 24, 2010 4:27 PM in reply to Schmed
You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no such thing as "de facto" citizenship. The Supreme Court had already held that African Americans, slave or free, could not become citizens. The 13th Amendment did nothing to change that rule. It was the 14th Amendment that overturned the Supreme Court decision on that issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LonewackoDotCom3
June 24, 2010 4:46 PM in reply to SkepticalCidada
Continuing with the history lesson, read what the original author of the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause had to say: 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.
There's a link to the original Congressional record here, and that includes an example of a well-known far-left group "creatively" editing that quote. They know what the original intent was.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
June 24, 2010 4:58 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3
Speaking of "creative editing": you left out this part:
"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."
Former slaves being "born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction" would seem to be citizens by "natural law." So, would that be de facto law?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LonewackoDotCom3
June 24, 2010 5:24 PM in reply to Schmed
I'm sorry this is too much for you to understand. The part I quoted was an exception to the rule you posted.
It's like if your teacher tells you "every jar is full of applesauce, except for this one". She's not saying every jar is full of applesauce: she's saying every jar except the one indicated is.
Oh, heck. I'm not a kindergarten teacher so I can't explain it so you'd understand it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
June 24, 2010 10:13 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3
Not a kindergarten teacher but when youre called out for your bullshit you certainly look like a dance instructor as you diddy mao off the comment stage. Chickenshit asshat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 24, 2010 5:05 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3
Welcome to not 1868, or more appropriately the post 1898 world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
June 24, 2010 4:50 PM in reply to SkepticalCidada
So, what were all the white landed freemen in the original 13 colonies -- illegal aliens? Since citizenship wasn't defined in the Constitution, what was their basis for deeming themselves "citizens"? Were there other (state and/or local) laws that granted citizenship which would be recognized across internal juridictions? Were there no citizens until the 14th amendment came along?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
June 24, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to SkepticalCidada
More precisely, to the extent a decision with a written opinion by every judge can be said to say anything, the Dred Scott decision said African Americans weren't citizens unless the state they lived in happened to make them citizens of the state by statute. Which wasn't real damn likely to be a super popular idea anywhere outside New England.
And Dred Scot was still the law of the land, Civil War notwithstanding.
Many in the North, including Lincoln during the Lincoln-Douglas debates, argued that it wasn't the law of the land because there was no majority opinion, which meant it was binding on the parties, but not the nation as a whole. And that's true, as a general proposition--the occasional decision where there's no majority, just a majority concurring in the result for different reasons, isn't the law of the land. But there was enough wiggle room on whether that was the case with Dred Scott that the Radical Republicans, God bless 'em, didn't want to leave it up to a future Supreme Court to decide.
Hence the 14th and the requirement that southern states pass it as a condition of the lifting of military rule and readmission to statehood.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
June 24, 2010 4:51 PM in reply to Schmed
Well, you can "beg to differ" all you want, but you doing so doesn't change two facts:
(1) The 13th Amendment says nothing about slaves becoming citizens.
(2) The same people who wrote the 13th Amendment wrote another law just a few months later saying that slaves were citizens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
June 24, 2010 5:07 PM in reply to Zell
(1) The 13th Amendment says nothing about slaves becoming citizens.
No, it's silent on the issue of slaves and citizenship. Consequently, one must rely on prior legislation concerning who is a citizen. I refer you to Article One, Section Eight which gives Congress the right to decide who shall be a citizen. As so,....
(2) The same people who wrote the 13th Amendment wrote another law just a few months later saying that slaves were citizens.
....that law was constitutional, legally binding, and reflective of the fact that those former slaves' citizenship status was rendered changed by the 13th Amendment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
June 24, 2010 5:24 PM in reply to Schmed
I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Frankly, I think that you made a claim that you didn't really know the facts behind as confidently as you thought you did, but you're unwilling to admit that, so you're digging yourself deeper, seemingly oblivious to the fact that that's obvious to other people.
I am saying this not to be mean, or a jerk, or anything, but to point out to you that you might just want to drop it. Because, again, frankly, your current contention is just plain stupid (as opposed to your previous contention, which was merely wrong).
I mean, really. Take a look at what you've written. You're claiming that a law passed after the 13th proves that the 13th made former slaves citizens.
You're claiming that because that law made former slaves citizens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
June 25, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to Zell
Thanks for your speculation. Please disabuse me of stupidity and educate me by answering this question: what made Ben Franklin and George Washington citizens and how did that device not apply to former slaves freed by the 13th Amendment?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
June 24, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to Schmed
Article 1, Sec.8 does not give Congress the power to define who is a citizen. It gives it the power to "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
But I withdraw my prior comments about states having the power to confer citizenship. I went back and read Taney's opinion (which is about as pleasant a task as cleaning up doggie doo--I can only do it holding my nose and only in short bursts because it's that repulsive) and I totally misremembered it. Taney said states can't confer U.S. citizenship at all on nonwhites. As I read it, he also strongly implied that Congress couldn't do it either pursuant to the naturalization power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkepticalCidada
June 25, 2010 10:15 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
That was my recollection of Taney. Thanks for undertaking the miserable task of reading his pro-slavery drivel. I believe the inference drawn from Taney's opinion was that African Americans, free or slave, could not be made citizens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkepticalCidada
June 25, 2010 10:18 AM in reply to Schmed
Please stop trying to make constitutional arguments. You don't know what you're talking about, and there actually are other people who do know a little something about this issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
June 25, 2010 11:28 AM in reply to SkepticalCidada
I come to learn and your telling me to be quiet doesn't add anything to the process. Very few teachers win any awards by telling their pupils to sit down and shut up. If you think I'm wrong, then show me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
voreason
June 24, 2010 2:45 PM
How about we amend the Constitution so that people who name themselves after Ayn Rand are not allowed to own property, wear shoes or buy dental floss. Or be taken seriously. Ever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
June 24, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to voreason
I figured that he was named after the multi-national Rand Corporation. You know, the Paul's attempt to stay in touch with the "small people".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
June 24, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to CityGuy
FWIW, Rand is not a "multinational corporation" in the classic sense. It's a nonpartisan public policy think tank.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
June 24, 2010 4:07 PM in reply to agio
Maybe he was named after Rand-McNally. His political ideas are all over the map.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beautiful Mind of Barbara Bush
June 24, 2010 6:05 PM in reply to tinsk
Zing!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
June 24, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to voreason
Actually, he's not named after Ayn Rand. Rand is short for Randal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
voreason
June 24, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Yeah, that's what he claims.
And credibility is no issue with cat, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
June 24, 2010 4:09 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Has he provided his birth certificate to prove it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
June 24, 2010 11:09 PM in reply to tinsk
LoL. You are on a roll tonight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
June 25, 2010 12:04 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
Even if he wasn't named after Ayn Rand, he seems to be trying to live up to the name anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkepticalCidada
June 25, 2010 10:19 AM in reply to jeffgee
And let's be serious. I've never heard of any Randall who just happens to go by Rand. The unusual nickname seems to be clearly inspired by Ayn Rand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
June 24, 2010 5:56 PM in reply to voreason
I think the point is to eliminate the 14th amendment as a loop hole for encouraging illegal immigration. We are the only first world nation, from what I can tell, that allows this.
I can't get a job in the United States, but I had to wait while an Indian family pre-boarded, they had three generations, seven passports, one American, for the infant.
Another time, at the San Francisco airport, I overheard an Indian girl working in technology in Phoenix, was on her way to Hong Kong to meet her husband from India, for a weekend in which they hoped to make her pregnant.
These of course were for people who were in the U.S. legally - probably as H1B visas. But it hardly seems right that they be here at all, when Americans can't get jobs, and then allow them to 'drop' an 'anchor baby'. No other nation allows that.
It seems even less reasonable to allow people who are here illegally to do the same. The 14th Amendment should, itself, be amended so that it serves the purpose intended.
These seem like reasonable and debatable points. It's unfortunate that they are being forwarded by the rogue, Rand Paul.
Lastly, I wonder how many people against changing this provision in the constitution are employed. Where you stand on an issue depends upon where you sit on an issue.
As I write this, I sit in a 7x7 box room (including my bathroom) in Asia getting ready to go teach English to people who are basically aiming to take my job in the states. In fact, I can't get back and live in my own country because I can't get a job. I've been out of my old profession so long now, baring a 1990s style job rush, I'll not get another. I'm now 50 years old. I find the issue of illegal immigration, thus, highly inflammatory: it is allowed by elite Republicans because they like the cheap labor, and by elite Democrats because they see future votes. But to everyday American's it helps rive them into poverty by undermining their bargaining power. Case in point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
June 24, 2010 8:25 PM in reply to Tim
from what you can tell? did you do any research on that?
most nations do allow whoever was born in the country to become citizens for example canada and most of europe.
so what are you on about?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
June 24, 2010 9:37 PM in reply to elle a
Well, what I'm all about is trying to get a fricking job in my home country. You're just a country club democrat: you have a job and a home, maybe you have seperate rooms - a kitchen, a bathroom, a bedroom and a living room. I grew up with those things. All I want is the ability to get a job. Economically, illegal aliens hurt ordinary Americans. But, hey, you've got a job. Why should you care. Without a job, I'm effectively a person without a country, because the only country I can legally get a job in is allowing cheap labor from out side the country to come in a squeeze me out.
I'm in South Korea, and I know they don't do that here. If you are illegally here, you and your children have to leave, and get a visa.
I do have a friend who is high ranking in the immigration office, I've talked with him about this before and there issue is trying to make sure that illegal alliens are afforded some human rights. I even think they have treaties with other countries insuring that the offspring of their nationals, if here illegally, are citizens of the country their parents are from. I will double check on that.
I also recall reading, after our discusion, that it is not possible in most first world nations to do this either. We are the only one that gives illegals aliens issue citizenship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
June 24, 2010 10:23 PM in reply to Tim
Wah wah wah, I'm in South Korea on vacation and I'm butthurt! Oh noes! Maybe you should take some of Rand's other advice and just find a job that pays less. :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkepticalCidada
June 25, 2010 10:23 AM in reply to Tim
Sealing our borders will only make the economic downturn worse.
You should be railing against the irresponsible bankers who got rich destroying the economy and the conservative deregulators who enabled them.
Scapegoating brown and yellow people won't fix the economy. But it will make you look like a screeching racist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
June 24, 2010 2:46 PM
By all means, let's throw the Anchor Babies overboard! This just continues the GOP's outreach to Latino voters. At this rate, within a decade, Republicans will be losing statewide races in Texas!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluetexas
June 24, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to CityGuy
We plan for Republicans to start losing this year, starting with Prick Perry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
June 24, 2010 6:05 PM in reply to CityGuy
The issue to be debated, isn't existing anchor babies, but future anchor babies. The amendment, as written, is a loop hole that creates an incentive for unlawful immigration.
You, apparently have a job, or are economically secure. But millions of Americans are affected by illegal immigration: it either dis-employs them outright or drives down their bargaining power. It would be all fine and dandy if I could enter Norway illegally and drop an anchor there, but, unfortunately, no other nation reciprocates the 14th amendments current loop hole.
It seems to me that it is entirely unfortunate situation that the only person speaking up for these millions of American's interests is a rogue, and likely a racist rogue at that. Politics in this country no longer serves the interest of the America public, just America's elites.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
June 24, 2010 9:42 PM in reply to Tim
Well if you must know, I was laid-off from my middle management position, and currently have about $150.00 in my checking account. But I certainly do not blame illegal immigrants for my situation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
June 25, 2010 8:51 AM in reply to Tim
All three of your posts say so much about the position (losing) unemployed Americans are in. The Federal Govt will do NOTHING about illegal immigration because of cheap labor ('pubs) and votes (Dems). And when the states (AZ & Nebraska) attempt to 'defend' their citizenry everyone screams "racism". It's a convenient position for the responsible party - the Federal Govt - to be in. Our representatives talk about a 'fence', militias, drug gangs, etc. As a result nothing gets done. Americans lose, illegals lose, 'reform' gets kicked down the road, and life goes on. Sorry for your situation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkepticalCidada
June 25, 2010 10:25 AM in reply to Tim
Yeah, so go vote for the GOP and see how well working people do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PurpleAvenger
June 24, 2010 2:47 PM
um, TPM headline writers . . .could you refrain from following the rightwing meme and referring to undocumented immigrants as "illegals." Presence in the US without documents is not in and of itself a crime, and there are many undocumented persons who never broke the law but may be here without documents (e.g., visa overstays). And more to the point, calling these PEOPLE "illegals" is degrading and dehumanizing (which is, of course, the wingers' point - but one I'd hope TPM would not follow.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
king buzzo
June 24, 2010 4:26 PM in reply to PurpleAvenger
+1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
June 24, 2010 2:48 PM
Calling Sharon Angle, your new talking point is ready.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jolly ranchero
June 24, 2010 2:54 PM
Many argue that these children that are born to illegal aliens are really still under the jurisdiction of the Mexican government.
This would certainly surprise the illegal Canadians, Central Americans, and Europeans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
June 24, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to jolly ranchero
Not to mention Haitians, Cape Verdeans, Jamaicans, and Cubans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
storm
June 24, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to Schmed
last i checked, parents didn't need to have come from the same place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jayhg
June 24, 2010 4:49 PM in reply to Schmed
Or Italians or the French
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
June 24, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to jolly ranchero
That makes no sense. If they are under the jurisdiction of Mexico or their native country, does that then mean while they are here US laws have no authority or jurisdiction over them?
If nothing else, it is a Rand Paul / GOP Freudian slip that the whole immigration issue is really all about ethnic discrimination.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
June 24, 2010 5:03 PM in reply to tinsk
Exactly. If an undocumented immigrant gets into a car accident in Illinois, you can be quite certain that an Illinois court is not going to have to inquire minutely as to whether it has jurisdiction. Mr. Paul is grasping at straws here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
June 24, 2010 5:34 PM in reply to tinsk
yep, you nailed it! The reference to the "Mexican Government" is a slip, and a clearly un-intended one at that. Randy must have been drinking some of the Bud Lite Limes...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ajax the Greater
June 24, 2010 2:58 PM
Can someone please explain to me how teabaggers can simultaneously say that they are bigtime supporters of the Constitution and call for repealing portions of it (14th Amendment, 17th Amendment, etc.)?
I am confused.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
June 24, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to Ajax the Greater
Consistency isn't their strong suite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkepticalCidada
June 24, 2010 4:30 PM in reply to Schmed
Nor intellect. They are no different from fundamentalist Christians. They both read try to stupidly read their sacred texts literally but ignore the parts they don't like.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TBender
June 24, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to Ajax the Greater
Thou shalt not believe in Amendments other than the 2nd and the 10th (and the 1st when it suits your needs).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsfox
June 24, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to Ajax the Greater
Easy - If the constitution supports teabaggers' beliefs they are all for it when it does change it so it does. Stupid, but not hard ;)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gayinmt
June 24, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to jsfox
Same with the bible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 24, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to gayinmt
Agreed that is very good point
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clemenceau
June 24, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to Ajax the Greater
I'm waiting for him refuse to accept that "unconstitutional" Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bobbobfofob
June 24, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to Ajax the Greater
The constitution provides for an amendment mechanism. It's not un-constitutional to amend the constitution. So where's the inconsistency?
I think Rand is being a douche, and his proposed amendment is based on douchery with at least a streak of racism behind it. But it's just a strawman to pretend that the teabaggers are claiming that the current set of amendments have achieved a state of perfection.
Note that I'm not saying you can't find inconsistencies galore among teabaggers. Advocating laws that *do* violate the constitution (like trying to deny citizenship by passing a law, rather than amending the particular part of the consitution that's getting in their way, or supporting the recent AZ law without caring about its constitutionality) is a better place to look.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkepticalCidada
June 24, 2010 4:34 PM in reply to bobbobfofob
You're being too generous. When it comes to many, many public policy arguments, the only justification that teabaggers often offer is some claim that the liberal position is unconstitutional. They treat the Constitution as the final word on policy debate all the time when it favors them. To suggest changing it here forces them to go back to all those other issues--like guns, federalism, federal reserve, etc.--and offer an actual intelligent policy argument rather than just screech that the policy they don't like is unconstitutional. There is a major hypocrisy in their "thought" (and I use that word very qualifiedly).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkepticalCidada
June 24, 2010 4:46 PM in reply to SkepticalCidada
I've found myself arguing with teabaggers over some of their pet issues before. They make some grand pronouncement about how some policy is unconstitutional and then I say, "ok, let's just change the constitution then; now what's you're argument that we shouldn't?" They usually don't have one because they all just repeat these slogans about gun control, federal regulation, etc. being unconstitutional.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
June 24, 2010 4:36 PM in reply to bobbobfofob
Agreed. However, there is a reason the amendment mechanism was designed by the framers to be a very high bar to vault. It is not intended to be amended based on simple public opinion at a given snapshot in time. Prohibition proves that point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
June 24, 2010 4:15 PM in reply to Ajax the Greater
Only "real American" t-baggers get to decide which parts of the Constitution need to be changed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
June 24, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to Ajax the Greater
You're making the mistake of believing that their Konstitootion is the same as the Pinko Commie Librul Islomofascist so-called "Constitution of the United States."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
June 24, 2010 3:05 PM
Punish the children for being born? You're a real big man, Rand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PhadScad
June 24, 2010 3:08 PM
This is the 'tell' w/regard to the sincerity of his libertarianism (or lack thereof). He doesn't want the Gov't in our lives except when they are protecting the cultural privilege of the Whites.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkepticalCidada
June 24, 2010 4:37 PM in reply to PhadScad
Sadly, that's what libertarianism has been about for 40 years: a bunch of spoiled rich white men whining about only government regulations that they don't like. I've yet to see a principled one who, for example, feels as strongly about abortion rights or sexual freedom as about taxes, guns, and other spoiled rich white male obsessions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
June 24, 2010 3:11 PM
Keep on doubling down on hating those brown skinned Americans, Republicans. It's sure to pay off in the long run.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
June 24, 2010 3:11 PM
Wait - Rand thinks *he* knows what the Constitution should mean? Somebody call the Teabagger Police, Strict-Constructionist division! :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WillAct723
June 24, 2010 3:13 PM
THE CONSTITUTION IS A SACRED DOCUMENT! IF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED A DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THEY WOULD'VE WRITTEN IT IN!
Oh this anchor baby stuff? Well, they MEANT to include it. I'm just helping them out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mezcalero
June 24, 2010 3:15 PM
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan,
I remember a time long ago, when men were free, individuals were judged by the content of their character, and their capacity to succeed as Americans was based not based on who their parents were, but on their actions as adults.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
June 24, 2010 3:15 PM
How many "anchor babies" live in Kentucky? That is the crowd Paul is playing to with this. He's not running for national office. I guess you could use this remark to ask other politicians what they think about this. I'd love to hear McCain's answer for one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gayinmt
June 24, 2010 3:21 PM
"Many argue that these children that are born to illegal aliens are really still under the jurisdiction of the Mexican government."
So this only applies to Mexicans?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
June 24, 2010 3:33 PM in reply to gayinmt
Many argue that UFO's are hiding behind the moon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gayinmt
June 24, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
No, they're not hiding there. Obama set up internment camps and put them there. Big difference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pgbach
June 24, 2010 4:13 PM in reply to gayinmt
Jurisdiction is a matter of geographical location. Rand's claim that "some people argue" means nothing as anyone can argue anything, rightly or wrongly. On the other hand, let Rand and his GOP ilk proceed as it can only hasten the death of their party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
June 24, 2010 5:18 PM in reply to pgbach
It's not only a matter of geography. Foreign ambassadors, government officials here on official business and their families cannot be imprisoned by US courts for breaking the law and are thus not under the jurisdiction of the United States. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of Mexican drug dealers here who would be only too happy to not be under the jurisdiction of US laws.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Calouste
June 24, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to gayinmt
And on the other side, if those people are not under American jurisdiction, how can they have broken any American laws?
Before Paul even starts trying to read and comprehend the constitution, he better pick up a dictionary and work out what "jurisdiction" means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
June 24, 2010 3:22 PM
If Randy keeps yapping maybe a Dem can win in KY!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
June 24, 2010 3:27 PM
I have a modest suggestion: All candidates for public office should have to take a final exam from a high school civics class and their scores should be published for all to see.
So Rand Paul thinks the courts should rule on this issue. Well, he's 112 years behind the news. The SCOTUS did rule on this in US v. Ark in 1898. They ruled that the intent of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment was clearly to be consistent with English common law in which anyone born withing the King's realm and subject to his laws and protection.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Philv
June 24, 2010 3:45 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I'd be happy if we just taught civics to the general population at a deeper level then just the three branches of government basics. Because let's face it, I don't think most Americans are going to do better than Rand Paul on any civics exam, you even see that from the supposedly well-informed who carry on all over the Internet (from both the right and the left) who seem to have no clue on how the government actually functions. How many Americans understand the filibuster, including exactly what the reconciliation process is? Judging by the "well-informed", not many.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
June 24, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Well hell, if you're going to start arguing with facts 'n stuff, he's not going to be giving you any interviews. Why, I'll bet that there are some people who would argue that he Constitution is whatever Rand Paul says it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
June 24, 2010 5:48 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Well, 112 years ago they didn't even have Twitter. What's your point?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rtay
June 24, 2010 3:41 PM
Reward people for committing illegal act, you're a real sweetheart Dorn76. Charles Manson wants to write a book about his murders and keep the money why not? Rob a bank, deal drugs, murder your spouse for the insurance money and when you get busted keep your ill gotten gains, hey that's fine with me. Put your blinders on and claim that entering the country without getting inspected and authorized by a government official isn't an illegal act that's just fine. Maybe I can just be an undocumented Doctor and operate on you Purple fart brain. Is that degrading enough for you? Hey I'm a left winger and I can play just as dumb as a tea bagger. Hell why not just throw the borders open to every one? Why are we just worrying about the Mexicans you bunch of racists? Let's clear out the slums of Calcutta and Rio while we're at it. Another 1/2 billion won't matter. Especially ones that are too stupid to know you shouldn't be having children if you can't even take care of yourself. It's just really good to know there are as many morons on the left as there are on the right. It will ensure the world will never get any better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 24, 2010 4:11 PM in reply to rtay
What's illegal about being born, Champ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rtay
June 24, 2010 5:19 PM in reply to Signalman
Nothing, but it is illegal to profit from illegal activity. If you disagree with this then we can agree to disagree. Now an unborn fetus doesn't have a choice about where they are born so I wouldn't hold that against them but their parents should never get legal immigration status based on coming to America to birth their child. I am not saying I agree with Rand but if people can't even see the point he is making and that the argument has merits then we as a human race are doomed. You don't have to agree with an argument to see it's value.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rtay
June 24, 2010 5:25 PM in reply to Signalman
Nothing, but it is illegal to profit from illegal activity. If you disagree with this then we can agree to disagree. Now an unborn fetus doesn't have a choice about where they are born so I wouldn't hold that against them but their parents should never get legal immigration status based on coming to America to birth their child. I am not saying I agree with Rand but if people can't even see the point he is making and that the argument has merits then we as a human race are doomed. You don't have to agree with an argument to see it's value.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 24, 2010 5:30 PM in reply to rtay
"Nothing"
That's right. Nothing.
The rest of your prattle is beside the point. You can GTFO now, troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rtay
June 24, 2010 5:34 PM in reply to Signalman
Thanks for proving my point. You're no better than the tea baggers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 24, 2010 5:47 PM in reply to rtay
You've proven no point, and I've provided you no assistance.
Your methodology of Proof by Assertion marks you as a person who is bereft of fact and evidence, and who will seek to 'prove' their argument by shouting louder and longer than anyone else.
Just shove off, okay? If you don't have any serious, supportable points to make, with some sort of evidentiary proof to back yourself up, then don't waste anyone else's time, okay?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rtay
June 24, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to Signalman
Yeah your name calling and telling people who disagree with you to go away is so much better. Liberals are suppose to be open minded but they are just as closed minded as any conservative. And I'll go away when I'm good and ready and not because of anything you have to say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 24, 2010 6:12 PM in reply to rtay
"Yeah your name calling"
I called you "Champ" and "pathetic.' Grow a skin, newbie. Either that or find an IBB where they care about your feelings.
"and telling people who disagree with you to go away"
I don't care if you disagree with me or not; that's not why I'm telling you to shove off. I'm telling your to go away because you're an ignorant ass espousing an ignorant opinion and demanding that others give you a creditable hearing for that selfsame ignorant opinion.
If you can't stand the heat, then GTFO out the kitchen. Either back up your views and opinions, or be prepared for the takedown, troll.
"is so much better. Liberals are suppose to be open minded but they are just as closed minded as any conservative."
That's all well and good, but I never voted for a Democrat in my life before 2004. Why don't you chew on that for a while, Mister Feet In Both Camps?
"And I'll go away when I'm good and ready and not because of anything you have to say."
You can either shove off or become my latest Internet chew-toy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rtay
June 24, 2010 6:27 PM in reply to Signalman
What does being a liberal have to do with voting Democrat? I don't know much about you except you don't want to listen to other peoples opinions because you have all the answers. And as far as your little fantasy about chewing on things you are a sick puppy. Reply on not I won't be reading since I've had enough stupidity for the day, probably the week.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 24, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to rtay
"What does being a liberal have to do with voting Democrat?"
(laughing) :D
You want to tell me what voting Republican and Libertarian from 1980 to 2000 has to do with being a liberal?
(pointing, laughing) :D
"I don't know much about you"
No, you certainly don't. (guffaw)
"except you don't want to listen to other peoples opinions"
I don't want to listen to lectures from intolerant ignorami who have to idea how to present their vehement opinions in a legible and polite manner, no. I don't care to hear from people like that.
"because you have all the answers."
I never said or thought any such thing. But I suspect I have a better handle on them than you do.
"And as far as your little fantasy about chewing on things you are a sick puppy."
Shrug.
"Reply on not I won't be reading since I've had enough stupidity for the day, probably the week."
Doesn't matter to me if you reply or not. I can reply to your posts whether they're aimed in my direction or elsewhere.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rtay
June 24, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to Signalman
Oh yeah and telling me to GTFO isn't that what Rand doing????????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 24, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to rtay
Can you write with any degree of coherence? Can you even use punctuation marks properly?
Bring the jerking of your knee under control, get your freakin' thoughts in order, and then come back and try again, Champ.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rtay
June 24, 2010 6:17 PM in reply to Signalman
I could take more time, proof read to make sure all of my grammar and punctuation were perfect but the time would be wasted on an ignorant punk like you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 24, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to rtay
"I could take more time, proof read to make sure all of my grammar and punctuation were perfect"
I bet you can't. And I bet you won't *because* you can't. :p
"but the time would be wasted on an ignorant punk like you."
Given the spelling, punctuation, grammatical and usage errors running rampant throughout your posts, I think it more likely that the "ignorant punk" here is you. But hey, don't let your aversion to name-calling prevent you from coming up with more colorful appellations to apply to me. I'm sure you can do better than "ignorant punk" if you try. (giggling) :D
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sagesource
June 24, 2010 4:25 PM in reply to rtay
You're a teabagger and your attempt to imitate a left-winger is... well, dumb.
But very, very funny, in a sad way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rtay
June 24, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to sagesource
I am a person who holds their own opinions and think people who have to put everything into one camp or another are ignorant. Gays in the military, no problem. Gay marriage not a supporter. Civil unions for gays no problem. Money for stupid wars no way, money to protect america from terrorists no problem. Legal immigration no problem, illegal immigration no way, easier worker visa's yes, yes, yes. I could easily piss off both sides without any problem and never pass a purity test for either. A man without a home. That is sad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
June 24, 2010 5:20 PM in reply to rtay
I love reading a good, cogent, well thought out argument. Unfortunately, this isn't one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rtay
June 24, 2010 5:32 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
It wasn't meant to be that was the point of the post. 99% of the posts aren't. But to hold yourself to be superior to the right when the many on left are just as off base is the issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 24, 2010 5:55 PM in reply to rtay
You're hardly in any position to be the judge of that. For crying out loud, you just compared someone telling you to GTFO of an IBB to a candidate for Senate wanting to enshrine discrimination into the Constitution.
You're absolutely pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rtay
June 24, 2010 6:21 PM in reply to Signalman
I'm in the position to judge what I want, you freaking moron. If my opinion matters so little why do you bother replying to my posts. Oh yeah for the sake of the purity of TPM. Don't want any of their kind to post here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 24, 2010 6:35 PM in reply to rtay
Reply to you below at 6:33 PM.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
clemenceau
June 24, 2010 3:43 PM
An interview with Right Wing News? Too funny. Here is one of the questions he was asked:
"Now, I've been paying a lot of attention to the left side of the blogosphere and whom they talk about. I've got to tell you, after Sarah Palin, you seem to be the candidate liberals on these blogs are the most terrified of. Why do you think that is? You're public enemy number two I would say right now..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Calouste
June 24, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to clemenceau
They're confusing "scared of" with "laugh at the most"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
June 24, 2010 3:43 PM
Classic grandstanding. Leaving aside the fact that this has already been ruled on by SCOTUS, amending the Constitution would require 2/3rd votes in both houses (unlikely), and ratification by 2/3rd of the the states (even less likely).
So in other words, its just some free hate for the red-meat starved teabraggers in Kentucky.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Redwood Rhiadra
June 24, 2010 4:20 PM in reply to agio
3/4ths of the states, not 2/3rds. Amending the Constitution is a *really* high bar, as it should be. (Look at the mess a trivial amendment process has made of the California constitution).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
June 24, 2010 4:24 PM in reply to Redwood Rhiadra
Thanks for the correction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acadams
June 24, 2010 3:45 PM
Wrong though he may be (is), my thanks to Paul for at least making me consider what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in this context, which I had never considered before. Here's a well written, concise comment on that question published recently by the Yale Law Journal, which provides a historical account of the phrase's meaning: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/875.pdf
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
onecrappyusername
June 24, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to acadams
Excellent post! That link provides exactly what I was seeking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 24, 2010 5:38 PM in reply to acadams
Agreed! Thank you very much for that!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bloke1
June 24, 2010 3:45 PM
what if one parent is legal and the other is illegal?
What if I am here on a tourist visa?
What if we dont know the nationality of the father?
What if the child is born withthe paretns out of status but the parents then gain some form of legal status (visa expired then renewed)
this simplist BS he spews is about as stupid as he is. How did he get through medical school?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Resistance
June 24, 2010 4:11 PM in reply to bloke1
What if? you would do a little research
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Thelonious Funk
June 24, 2010 3:49 PM
If the 14th Amendment was only meant to apply to the children of slaves, does that mean that the 2nd Amendment was only meant to apply to single shot muzzle loaded rifles?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gridian
June 24, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to Thelonious Funk
+1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sagesource
June 24, 2010 4:22 PM in reply to Thelonious Funk
Swords too, surely. Though for some reason I've never understood, bladed weapons seem to be heavily restricted.... I guess they don't give the 2nd Amendment fetishists enough of a tingle in the right organ.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 24, 2010 6:00 PM in reply to Thelonious Funk
Clearly, then, the FAA and FCC are unconstitutional, as the Founders saw fit to leave aircraft, TV and radio out of the Constitition.
/snark
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Resistance
June 24, 2010 3:52 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Resistance
June 24, 2010 4:03 PM in reply to Resistance
Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.
Intended to deter illegal activities such as entering the country illegally.
Illegal immigrants, who cross the border to have children, in order to achieve what they could not do legally.
Just as a police officer committing an illegal act to gain evidence; person’s committing illegal acts in order to gain Citizenship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sagesource
June 24, 2010 4:20 PM in reply to Resistance
Um, except that the parents don't gain citizenship automatically. The child does.
Or do you think the magic fetus is radio-controlling his mother from inside her body?
Try again, wanker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
boredwell
June 24, 2010 3:59 PM
So, if I have read Paul's argument correctly, kids born to parents who are illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico, are legal citizens. Why are the anti-immigration people so worked up over Mexicans/Latinos? OMG! Imagine if one of those poor souls ever planted a bomb in Times Square!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Resistance
June 24, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to boredwell
Or someone named Pancho Villa invaded our country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
voreason
June 24, 2010 3:59 PM
I just noticed that the Rand interview was with an entity called "Right Wing News".
You can't make this stuff up.
Right Wing News: Fair and Balanced? Ha, Ha, Ha!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
June 24, 2010 4:04 PM
This idiot wants to overthrow 112 years of precedence that created birthright citizenship regardless of parental citizenship? How conservative is that? This country now includes the descendants of millions of Americans who became citizens under the doctrine of birthright citizenship. Is he going to propose now going back multiple generations and denying citizenship to the descendants of those who first came here "illegally?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DF
June 24, 2010 4:34 PM
I could fully support this, but only if it's 100% retroactive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
June 24, 2010 4:46 PM
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just hand out condoms to illegal aliens so that they don't have kids rather than go through all the trouble and expense for GOP'ers to hunt them down and deport the little ones. Oh, that's right.. can't do that. That would only promote more sexual activity between brown skinned people, thus raising the GOP "ick factor" off the charts. Okay, better to change the whole fucking Constitution instead.... OR NOT!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 24, 2010 4:47 PM
The whole issue of denying citizenship to children born within US borders to parents who are considered "illegal" immigrants is the latest in a series of "issues" carefully designed to deflect from the Republican Party's primary objective: The destruction of the federal government's ability to regulate Wall Street bankers and big corporations; something that has almost been achieved especially with the concomitant aid of corporationist Democrats like Bill Clinton and the Obama administration financial advisory team, i.e. Geithner, Summers and Bernanke.
Even if Republicans recapture both house of Congress in the fall elections rest assured that an amendment such as (Ayn)Rand Paul proposes will be conveniently put on the back burner, only to be trotted out once every two years or so to rouse the GOP base. The Republican Party has done this with abortion, flag burning and the gay agenda for thirty years now and its moronic faithful never catch on.
Unfortunately Democrats also get caught up in this trivia when they should be focusing on the ordering and regulation of the economy as the first and foremost function of government. Not the minutia of the legality of abortion (it is,) gay marriage (it should be,) or burning the flag.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
donquijoterocket
June 24, 2010 4:48 PM
Can we make any such amendment retroactively apply to Ms. Maglalang?People like this twit,Angle, the teabaggers and assorted palinistas always put me in mind of the line from the song Surrey with the Fringe on top, Watch the fringe and see how it flutters.One would hope there's enough core decency and good sense in this country that he's laughed into the obscurity he so richly deserves but you can never be sure how effective such demagoguery will be especially among the modestly educated.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
June 24, 2010 4:51 PM
Well Rand, it's like this - people say stupid shit all the time. That doesn't mean that we should amend the Constitution to agree with them.
BTW - if they're under the jurisdiction of the Mexican government, does that mean they can stay if the Mexican government says it's OK?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pipestein
June 24, 2010 5:07 PM
lets follow Rand's buffoonery to a pie in the sky conclusion. If I were a Native American I would love for an amendment like this to be passed because all of the sudden you can argue that any white man in the United States is not a citizen since children born in the country to immigrant parents cannot be citizens. That means I must be Irish. Rand and his dad are idiots, they make libertarians look like idiots and while I may share some policy ideas in common with them, that only makes me feel ashamed of myself for the simple fact it certainly seems to me that Rand hates brown, black, and yellow people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
June 24, 2010 5:08 PM
I do agree with Mr Paul even one little bit about the desirability of amending the constitution, but I am obliged to him at least for admitting that there is a constitutional objection to the Right's beat-up-on-the-Mexicans project. Many (probably most, although I have made no effort to quantify perceptions to any degree of accuracy) tea-party types will not admit even that much, so Mr. Paul is still ahead of the average tea-partier.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hotspur
June 24, 2010 5:14 PM
This case basically already was brought to the Supreme Court, in 1898, as US vs Wong Kim Ark. Short version -- Wong's parents were here but Chinese and therefore barred by the Chinese Exclusion Act from ever gaining US citizenship; Wong was born in the US, and his family left with him to go back to China. As an adult, he attempted to return but was barred in the port of San Francisco, under the allegation that he had lost his citizenship by living under Chinese rule for so long. The Supreme Court decided 6-2 that US citizenship is "jus soli" (determined by place of birth) and parents' citizenship is beside the point, even if the parents are actively banned by law from ever becoming citizens. So, Rand Paul, you are 112 years late to the party, and hugely uninformed about the United States.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pipestein
June 24, 2010 5:17 PM in reply to hotspur
Someone needs to send the case law and your citation to Rand so he can wise up and take his foot out of his mouth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hotspur
June 24, 2010 5:14 PM
This case basically already was brought to the Supreme Court, in 1898, as US vs Wong Kim Ark. Short version -- Wong's parents were here but Chinese and therefore barred by the Chinese Exclusion Act from ever gaining US citizenship; Wong was born in the US, and his family left with him to go back to China. As an adult, he attempted to return but was barred in the port of San Francisco, under the allegation that he had lost his citizenship by living under Chinese rule for so long. The Supreme Court decided 6-2 that US citizenship is "jus soli" (determined by place of birth) and parents' citizenship is beside the point, even if the parents are actively banned by law from ever becoming citizens. So, Rand Paul, you are 112 years late to the party, and hugely uninformed about the United States.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hotspur
June 24, 2010 5:15 PM in reply to hotspur
Oy -- the Internets told me there was an error and my comment failed to post. Internets, I blame you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NotBornEveryMinute
June 24, 2010 6:14 PM
From what I've read, it seems that Australia and most of Europe (and others) don't confer citizenship unconditionally upon persons born within their borders. Generally, at least one parent must be a citizen, or in the country legally. And there are other acceptable conditions in various countries.
I'd like to see the US adopt something like the European models. And while we're adopting European models, let's have some rational health care and a general acceptance of evolution. (Hey, I can dream, can't I?)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hotspur
June 24, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to NotBornEveryMinute
Worth noting: France, Germany, Denmark -- even England vs Wales -- there exist specific, long-standing ethnic and ethnographic distinctions, such that we all know what a Roman nose is, etc.; we can predict which are French, Swedes and Greeks in a crowd of French, Swedes and Greeks. American identity is different -- it comes with no such standard. It requires only that you want to be American. And I like our openness and leadership in this area.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NotBornEveryMinute
June 24, 2010 7:19 PM in reply to hotspur
So, open fnord borders?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NotBornEveryMinute
June 25, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to hotspur
So, open fnord borders?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Yash
June 24, 2010 6:21 PM
Fuck you, Rand Paul.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nanotech
June 24, 2010 6:22 PM
If Rand argues that the children of migrants here illegally are not subject to US jurisdiction, then they couldn't be arrested. They can be because they are subject to US jurisdiction. QED
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NotBornEveryMinute
June 24, 2010 6:28 PM in reply to Nanotech
Upstream @acadams provides a link to a Yale Law Journal article which discusses various ways people interpret "jurisdiction". Good read.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 24, 2010 6:33 PM
"I'm in the position to judge what I want,"
Which wasn't what you said. You claimed that "99% of the posts aren't." What you *want* has no bearing on that. Please try harder to pay attention.
"you freaking moron."
Beautiful. I love this. First you cry about being called names -- when you weren't actually *called* any -- and now you're engaging in name-calling yourself. You're already more than halfway to the meltdown, boy.
"If my opinion matters so little"
You're not presenting your posts as opinion AFAICS. Maybe if you did, you'd get a fairer hearing from me.
"why do you bother replying to my posts."
Because I can't resist slowing down and rubbernecking at car wrecks.
"Oh yeah for the sake of the purity of TPM. Don't want any of their kind to post here."
Better restart your Windows For Telepaths software; you appear to have a General Program Fault with it. It's making up crazy shit I didn't think and didn't say and telling you that's what's in my head.
Guess again, Champ. (pointing, laughing) :D
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
June 24, 2010 7:10 PM in reply to Signalman
Are you new here? It really doesn't matter to me, I'm following you now. That exchange up-thread gave me my laugh for the day. Thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 25, 2010 10:11 AM in reply to Hobbes83
Glad to help. :)
I've been lurking for a few years, but never posted until perhaps last fall. I don't post a lot; maybe I'll blow out a passel of posts for a week or two and then pipe down for a couple of months.
I'll try to keep the lulz going. ;D
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sherifffruitfly
June 24, 2010 6:58 PM
White folks will overwhelmingly support that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Thinking-Independent
June 24, 2010 8:12 PM
Wow! Quite the discussion.
Amend the 14th or add another stating that the citizenship of a child born within a territory under US jurisdiction will be the same as that of the mother or the paternal father provided he claims the child as his own. If the paternal father does not claim the child but is found to be a citizen of the US, adjudication to determine the citizenship of the child can be requested. After all we don’t want pregnant women risking themselves or their unborn child by hiking through the northern wilderness or southern dessert just to get to US territory before delivery. Unless, of course, they just want to avail themselves of arguably some of the best possible healthcare available in the world before they and their child are returned home.
I have no problem with people wanting to become US citizens. Just follow the current law. If a majority of US citizens want to change that law, do it. And contrary to what someone above posted entering the US without appropriate documents IS against the law as is overstaying a visa. I understand that many folks are partisan on both sides but really enforce the current law! Or change it. We absolutely should do the former and then discuss the latter. Not doing the former and not being willing to do the latter puts us in the same position this lands occupants were in circa 1775-6. Does anyone here really want to change the “law of the land” via that process? I don’t.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
June 24, 2010 10:28 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Section 1 also includes a formal definition of citizenship. During the original debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the citizenship clause—described the clause as excluding not only "Indians", but also “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Howard also stated the word "jurisdiction" meant the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment. Such meaning precluded citizenship to any person who was beholden, in even the slightest respect, to any sovereignty other than a U.S. state or the federal government.
The 14th Amendment’s intent was directed at Freed Slaves and to overturn the Dred Scott decision, not to give “Anchor Babies” citizenship rights. Not acknowledging this commonly known fact about the 14th Amendment is very disingenuous and misleading by the author, it shows how his dogma gets in the way of established history.
The truth is Progressives need “Anchor Babies” to continue their slight advantages at voting booth. When these “Anchor Babies” have finally come to voting age, you all know full well they will not vote for a party that wants to deport their parents back to their countries of origin or deny their parents citizenship rights.
It’s very dangerous for this nation to have people that have come to this country illegally determining the outcome of our elections and it’s just as dangerous to have their children deciding the fate of this nation!
CHEERS...
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
June 25, 2010 12:10 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
But it's OK for foreign corporations to influence lawmaking with campaign contributions and unlimited advocacy advertising, thanks to Citizens United and SCOTUS 5-4, right, Regressive?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
June 25, 2010 12:17 AM in reply to jeffgee
For the record the 14th Amendment does not give person-hood to corporations, an activist judge did that unholy deed!
You just can't let your progressive dogma go, can you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jonez
June 25, 2010 8:51 AM
The baby's nationality should match the parent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
June 25, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to jonez
That's toooooooooo much common sense for the progressive mind to digest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mrwilson1
June 25, 2010 9:20 AM
For once I agree with Paul. The entire section giving citizenship to anyone born here from outside (not a US citizen)the country should be struck down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?