New Rand Paul “scandal”: We shouldn’t have birthright citizenship for illegals

posted at 5:33 pm on May 28, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via TPM, skip ahead to 9:00 for the key bit from this otherwise wide-ranging interview with the Kremlin’s TV house organ. (Really!) I’m as shocked as you are — shocked, that is, that this is considered some sort of fringe position given that there’s already a bill floating around the House that would redefine “natural-born citizen” to limit it to children of citizens or legal permanent residents. In fact, see if you can guess which fire-breathing, not-at-all-mainstream wingnut is responsible for this passage:

If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration — and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration — is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is derived: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning — divided allegiance — applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship.

Give up? The answer’s here. The point of this attack on Paul, of course, isn’t really to suggest that he’s fringe but to get prominent Republicans, who are terrified of losing any more Latinos votes, to condemn him. E.g., “Senator McConnell, Senator McConnell! Do you agree with Rand Paul that the poor suffering children of illegal aliens should not enjoy the joys of American citizenship?!11!?” And actually, it’s precisely that logic that guarantees that the House bill would never be enforced even if it passed and was deemed constitutional. The public’s simply not going to stomach deporting kids who were born here and spent their first, say, 10 years here, even in a post-birthright citizenship political landscape. Which is why some form of amnesty is almost certainly inevitable. Exit question: Er, are we sure Rand Paul’s a libertarian?

Update (5/29): A reader e-mails to point out that the bill in the House, H.R. 1868, actually doesn’t use the term “natural-born.” Here’s the key part:

`(b) Definition- Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered `subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is–

`(1) a citizen or national of the United States;

`(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or

`(3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).’.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Apologetic California on May 28, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Congrats.

You win the ‘gratuitous dodge of the facts’ award for the day.

Maybe even for the week.

Remind me to never have you argue a point of law on my behalf.

CPT. Charles on May 28, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Oh noes, another one of Hot Air’s many many many poor besotted constitutional lawyers. I’m LMAO at your ad-hoc creation of legal standards that conveniently backs you up.

Apologetic California on May 28, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Wolftech on May 28, 2010 at 6:16 PM

I’m not a troll, that is a true story from West Texas, I worked there as a nurse….hummm…

tinkerthinker on May 28, 2010 at 7:41 PM

The public’s simply not going to stomach deporting kids who were born here and spent their first, say, 10 years here, even in a post-birthright citizenship political landscape.

I think the anchor babies were deemed citizens in the more recent Naturalization Acts, so it would be unconstitutional ex post facto law to revoke their citizenship, but they aren’t Constitutional citizens ( natural born citizens ) so congress has the power to revoke any law so that future anchor babies are not citizens. They could also demand that dual citizens pick an allegiance or be deported for not renouncing and abjuring all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty that is not the US. Dual citizens have no obligations to the US. If you draft anchor babies into the military, they’ll be exempt from serving because they are Mexican Nationals.

Buddahpundit on May 28, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Warning: Full blown, wild- eyed semi- profane rant from a KY voter follows.

OH GAWD F’N DAMMIT!! Great job, Rand-o. Doin’ a heckuva job keepin’ your foot out of your mouth./sarc

Ok. Let’s stipulate that Rand’s correct in that we shouldn’t automatically grant citizenship to “anchor babies.” Let’s stipulate that I and most of the voting population of Kentucky of both parties probably agree.

The problem is not that he’s right. The problem is that he is under the liberal media’s microscope and they are looking to take anything he says, any GD thing at all, and make the entire GOP look like a freakshow. So now, because he’s got to talk to the Russian press, he gets to be portrayed as a whack job in the national media for the second weekend in a row.

I’ve said it before: All Rand had to do to win in November by 10 or more points is not be a Democrat. He literally didn’t have to do anything except maintain his pulse and remember to breathe. His Dem opponent, Conway, is a twink. The KY Dems had a tough primary and are still fractured. Rand Paul would have easily won by 100,000 or more votes.

Instead, he continues to give the liberal media a club to beat him and the rest of the GOP with. Both of the major KY papers (Lexington Herald- Leader and Louisville Courier- Journal) are as partisan and liberal as the New York Times. They are drooling with anticipation every time Rand opens his suckhole because they know he can’t rein in his idiotic Libertarian philosophy.

How, exactly, does the issue of anchor babies immediately affect the voters of Kentucky? Yes, we have our share of illegal immigrants, but we are not overrun with them the way the Southwest is. It is not (yet, I admit) the crisis that it is in AZ or NM. Therefore, why on God’d green Earth is Rand Paul talking to a Russian news service about it? Kentucky, Kentucky, KENTUCKY. That’s all Rand needs to talk about from now until November. He also only needs to talk to the local KY media. They’re capable of doing enough damage without the KGB’s help.

Rand is either a total, mouth- breathing moron or he’s a very deep, very well- covered Dem plant. Period.

Dukeboy01 on May 28, 2010 at 7:52 PM

HornetSting on May 28, 2010 at 7:09 PM
Any readers here from Missouri? Be proud: St. Louis has the best tasting tap-water in the country! As someone forced to move from there to California, I definitely miss it.

Inkblots on May 28, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Smelt free water?

HornetSting on May 28, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Dukeboy01 on May 28, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Lets just see how it effects his polling. I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that it’s going to hurt. Hell, this one might actually help. I bet this question will poll over %80 in Kentucky.

DFCtomm on May 28, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Apologetic California on May 28, 2010 at 7:35 PM

That’s your best shot?

Double Feh.

You’re living proof of what’s possible if you pretend ‘original intent’ has no weight.

The final refuge of Constitutional perverts: case law Über Alles.

CPT. Charles on May 28, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Instead, he continues to give the liberal media a club to beat him and the rest of the GOP with. Both of the major KY papers (Lexington Herald- Leader and Louisville Courier- Journal) are as partisan and liberal as the New York Times.

Dukeboy01 on May 28, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Such traumatized concern. One can almost detect the trembling of the fingers that typed it.

Buddahpundit on May 28, 2010 at 8:26 PM

NO ANCHOR BABIES!!!

jukin on May 28, 2010 at 8:39 PM

I agree with jukin—-get rid of the anchor baby concept. It is ridiculous that you can come across the border and even though you are an illegal, your baby is a citizen.

ILUVTX on May 28, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Has ANYONE actually READ the 14th Amendment?

All you need is:

Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Illegals don’t fall under this jurisdiction. The are citizens of another nation. They are not her legally. They are not authorized to be here. They are invaders.

My guess is close to 80 percent of the country would be behind ending anchor babies.

By the birthright standard John McCain is a legal resident of Panama.

William Amos on May 28, 2010 at 6:21 PM

Proof positive that smoking crack is bad for you.

McCain’s parents were citizens moron.

gary4205 on May 28, 2010 at 8:52 PM

He’s right. Citizenship should be limited to children of citizens and those who actually apply for citizenship. Not exactly rocket science, is it?

Jaibones on May 28, 2010 at 9:08 PM

Going after the 14th amendment will be the death of the GOP in the Southwest in 10 years. Chill out and learn how to legislate by winning hearts and minds. Attacking illegal babies is a cop out for years of mutual financial gain due to the illegal black market. Acting as if this doesn’t matter will reek of hypocrisy. This is if you care about winning later down the road. Sort of like Goldwater and 64 with the African American vote

conservador on May 28, 2010 at 9:48 PM

I can’t see the harm anymore. The GOP has lost Latinos. I’m not sure what they think they’ll get from the Dems. I can see it won’t be much at all, but they clearly think it’s more than they’ll get from the GOP.

AnninCA on May 28, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Problem is, the public won’t tolerate separating families, either.

amerpundit on May 28, 2010 at 5:37 PM

No problem. Even if a child were born in the US had a birth right citizenship, its parents could take the child back to Mexico with them. The child could return at any time, the parents could seek legal immigration status. Or the child could return when of age, on its own, and try to bring its parents in too.

Once birth-right citizenship is illegal, there would be less incentive for illegals to come to the US for primary purpose of providing US citizenship to their children.

Dasher on May 29, 2010 at 12:21 AM

This country is screwed.

therightwinger on May 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM

This country is screwed.

therightwinger on May 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM

Wrong. The f’n idiots are once more attempting to screw this country. They tried before under T. Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. The country won WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, (congress surrendered there) and is still the Economic Power of the world.

America once more chose unwisely. America will recover and repair her wounds. And fools will HOPE to erase this traitorous Regime’s history.

“What doesn’t kill me, makes me stronger.”

Caststeel on May 29, 2010 at 2:45 AM

I certainly hope you’re right.

therightwinger on May 29, 2010 at 4:02 AM

jp on May 28, 2010 at 5:45 PM

he’s tanking in latest Ky. poll per RCP….losing over 60% of moderates.

According to the only recent poll at RCP, namely the DailyKos poll, Rand Paul is taking Independents 42-31.

So, jp, it would appear yet again, that you are a fithy liar.

Color me shocked.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2010 at 9:11 AM

Rand is either a total, mouth- breathing moron or he’s a very deep, very well- covered Dem plant. Period.

Dukeboy01 on May 28, 2010 at 7:52 PM

And you are a the type of pants-wetting coward that has ruined the conservative movement for the last 20 years.

Period.

Do yourself and the movement a favor and shut your coward-hole.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2010 at 9:51 AM

I agree with Mr. Paul on this one. Definitely.

Send’em back. Their parents are lawbreakers. Shame on the parents for teaching them to break the law.

We just had two families this last week schedule appointments for their children through third parties because Mommy can’t be bothered to learn English. I don’t understand their lack of fear in an emergency where nobody understands what the bleep is going on.

Mommynator on May 29, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Paul is 100% correct.

No other country in the world has birthright citizenship for illegals.

Norwegian on May 29, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Going after the 14th amendment will be the death of the GOP in the Southwest in 10 years. Chill out and learn how to legislate by winning hearts and minds. Attacking illegal babies is a cop out for years of mutual financial gain due to the illegal black market. Acting as if this doesn’t matter will reek of hypocrisy. This is if you care about winning later down the road. Sort of like Goldwater and 64 with the African American vote

conservador on May 28, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Yeah! Let’s offer them more free goodies than the Democrats!

It’s worked like a charm so far… not.

Spiny Norman on May 29, 2010 at 11:58 PM

Has ANYONE actually READ the 14th Amendment?

Illegals don’t fall under this jurisdiction. The are citizens of another nation. They are not her legally. They are not authorized to be here. They are invaders.

My guess is close to 80 percent of the country would be behind ending anchor babies.

gary4205 on May 28, 2010 at 8:52 PM

It would be interesting to hear how the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 became a Constitutional Amendment.

Spiny Norman on May 30, 2010 at 12:06 AM

Apologetic California on May 28, 2010 at 6:26 PM

The fourteenth amendment has done the job it was written for, granting citizenship to former slaves and their offspring.

Being a strict constitutionalists, does not mean that one does not see room for constitutional amendments.

Slowburn on May 30, 2010 at 4:41 AM

http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2010/05/30/surveyusa-paul-leads-conway-by-6-points/

New poll out today. Paul went from leading by 25 points after election day to leading by 6 points after two weeks of non- stop shooting himself in the foot. Can’t wait to see what the polls are like by Labor day if Rand doesn’t learn to just STFU and maintain his lead.

But of course, I’m the jerk for pointing out that his inability to maintain message discipline and idiotic libertarianism would hurt him, even in KY.

Paul can win and I want him to, if for no other reason than I’d rather have a Libertardian in there for the entertainment spectacle on C-SPAN rather than an empty suit like Conway who will fall in line and do exactly what the Dem party bosses tell him to do. Paul really does need to shut up.

Dukeboy01 on May 30, 2010 at 11:39 AM

One of the biggest mistakes the Supremes ever made was to grant U.S. citizenship to any child who’s mother managed to sneak, lie, fly, swim, or crawl across our borders and download a child. The govt. then compounded the error by deciding that those “anchor babies” are entitled to welfare benefits, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. even if their parents are illegal aliens and NOT citizens of the U.S.!

Then the Supremes decided that ANY child in the US, even illegal aliens, MUST have access to free grade-school education. Talk about stupid (or smart, depending on your theories.) Either way, this is insanity.

Border enforcement will help, but our ridiculous laws that allow for free-for-all immigration and open borders must end.

shorebird on May 30, 2010 at 11:08 PM

Maybe it is not feasible. But that is certainly the right thing to do.

antisocial on May 31, 2010 at 12:27 AM

Comment pages: 1 2