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

Oh, HELL! Next he’s going to suggest that we should repeal ObamaCare! WHAT A NUT!

MadisonConservative on May 28, 2010 at 5:36 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.

So let the kids stay but make them learn English and take citizenship courses like everyone else.

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

amerpundit on May 28, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Uh, I’m right there with ya, Rand. So are most Americans, I guarantee it.

Doughboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:37 PM

And if you play the interview backwards, he says the n-word. RACIST!

Ian on May 28, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Do you agree with Rand Paul that the poor suffering children of illegal aliens should not enjoy the joys of American citizenship?!

Or how about the joys of driving the new Lamborghini that mom stole and gave you for graduation? Mean mean tow truck driver.

Ronnie on May 28, 2010 at 5:39 PM

Christie/Paul 2012?

Wolftech on May 28, 2010 at 5:39 PM

I love Russia Today… they’re not really any worse than our channels… and I love to speculate how those news anchors go their jobs…

ninjapirate on May 28, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Nope, I don’t see a problem with Mr. Paul’s position. It won’t fly with Congress, but I think the majority of Americans would agree with him. Even Latinos.

uncivilized on May 28, 2010 at 5:40 PM

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

thanks for pointing that out, Russia Today is a KGB outfit which targets American Useful Idiots.

jp on May 28, 2010 at 5:41 PM

We shouldn’t have birthright citizenship for illegals

I agree with him on this. If a thief gives his stolen loot to his child should the kid legally be allowed to keep it?

Guardian on May 28, 2010 at 5:41 PM

I’m really starting to like this guy.

gophergirl on May 28, 2010 at 5:42 PM

I agree. That law as it is doesn’t make much sense.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:43 PM

I think I agree with Rand Paul. I guess that makes me a racist.

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

If that’s the only way to keep the family together, then I don’t see the problem. What am I missing here?

dirtseller on May 28, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Maybe we don’t need to address the birthright citizenship issue… but the “divided allegiance” issue…

ninjapirate on May 28, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Who the heck cares what Congress is going to say about this…. they never listen to us, the people who elected them anyways.

No more anchor babies, baby!

upinak on May 28, 2010 at 5:44 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.

You are out of touch with mainstream America if you believe this.

pseudonominus on May 28, 2010 at 5:45 PM

he’s tanking in latest Ky. poll per RCP….losing over 60% of moderates. Thanks in large part to the CRA mess and Conspiracy Crank stuff like this:

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/203381/does-rand-paul-understand-his-own-conspiracy-theories

jp on May 28, 2010 at 5:45 PM

This guy is so crazy he probably believes that thousands of illegals sneak across the border to give birth for financial gain due to an idiotic loophole!
He’s nuts, I tells ya!

jjshaka on May 28, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Actually, based on a strict interpretation of the 14th Amendment, anyone here ‘unlawfully’ [i.e. illegally] is outside the protection of the 14th.

Sadly, it’s not the only perversion of the Constitution’s original intent.

CPT. Charles on May 28, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Here is how prominent Ky. Lib blog, Page One Kentucky frames this:

Rand Paul just wants to ship all the brown babies back to foreignerland.

There is a narrative, they have a media, the narrative must move fwd…

jp on May 28, 2010 at 5:47 PM

No.More.Anchor.Babies.

portlandon on May 28, 2010 at 5:49 PM

I don’t know about this. I can see where he is coming from here, but I am not sure if I agree. I do think that this dates back to the time when so many immigrants were coming here that illegal and legal was not such an issue as it is today. There was just immigration, look at all those Irish.

But at what point do we make the change? After all, there are a lot of growups out there paying taxes and doing all the things they are supposed to do, who would not be citizens today if this bill had been in effect when they were born.

Terrye on May 28, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Hater.
You can’t expect LAWBREAKERS to pay for their crimes…..

HornetSting on May 28, 2010 at 5:49 PM

The more I see of Paul, the more I like, especially the latest much ado about nothing! Send ‘em all back, then there will be no separation of families. This is a winning issue!

tomshup on May 28, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Geeee, I’m so racist I agree with him…

tinkerthinker on May 28, 2010 at 5:51 PM

No more anchor babies, baby!

upinak on May 28, 2010 at 5:44 PM

upinak: I second that,by all means necessary!:)

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 5:52 PM

No.More.Anchor.Babies.

portlandon on May 28, 2010 at 5:49 PM

No baby is an anchor.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Actually, based on a strict interpretation of the 14th Amendment, anyone here ‘unlawfully’ [i.e. illegally] is outside the protection of the 14th.

Sadly, it’s not the only perversion of the Constitution’s original intent.

CPT. Charles on May 28, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Ky. Libs already pointing out 14th amendment and further framing this as Racist…AND unconstitutional

http://barefootandprogressive.com/

Liberty Garbo spoke! With media from… Russia? Oh, and let’s deport all the brown babies and ignore the 14th amendment. After all, the 2nd and 10th are the only ones that really matter.

Yeah, but in fairness to Rand, that’s the bad part of the Constitution we don’t like. Being a strict constitutional conservative means you are free to scream about hundreds of laws torturing the Constitution to death (10th!!!), but still being free to completely ignore certain parts of the Constitution (particularly those that don’t apply so much to “lighter” folks). It’s a fun gig if you can get it.

I wonder if those “black helicopters” will still be cool with all of Rand Paul’s conspiracy theory supporters? I’m guessing once they hear who it’s for, they’ll come around

So Constitutionally, what is it? We don’t need candidates claiming to have a hold on the true constitution that set themselves up to get it totally wrong, and this would be twice now that it would be wrong on something RACE related???

Does the 14th Amendment make this Unconstitutional? If So how?

Politically AP is right of course.

jp on May 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM

No baby is an anchor.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM

No it is a freaking Mountain for illegals so they can’t move.

upinak on May 28, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Here are the facts folks even if Rand Paul believes this:

1) the 14th Amendment states otherwise

2) To change the 14th amendment Rand would have to find 66 other Senators who feel the same way.

3) And 2/3 of the House will have to vote the same way

4) And finally 3/4 of the state legislatures as well.

Rand Paul is only one of 100. If elected he will have the same power devolved to each senator of casting one vote and one vote only.

technopeasant on May 28, 2010 at 5:54 PM

No baby is an anchor.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM

How so ? Do tell

macncheez on May 28, 2010 at 5:55 PM

No baby is an anchor.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Narutoboy: Explain that to Olive Oil!

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 5:55 PM

No baby is an anchor.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Ha! You’re obviously not a parent.

John the Libertarian on May 28, 2010 at 5:55 PM

How so ? Do tell

macncheez on May 28, 2010 at 5:55 PM

macncheez: Poor Popeye!!:)

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM
No it is a freaking Mountain for illegals so they can’t move.

upinak on May 28, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Not to mention eighteen plus years of gubmint tit….

HornetSting on May 28, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Exit question: Er, are we sure Rand Paul’s a libertarian?

According to him, he’s not a libertarian. He calls himself a “constitutional conservative.”

Rae on May 28, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Poor Popeye!!:)

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Anchor babies are bred solely for the purpose of their SS# and all the free benefits they bring to illegals, in addition to the sympathy factor they bring just by being born in the US . Thats just the stark reality. Just because idiots don’t want us to see it doesn’t make this reality disappear.

macncheez on May 28, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Latino voters that are already jumping to the handout party were never conservative anyway. I don’t see why, if the child is under 18, they aren’t forced to be with their parents regardless of a new law. Unless they are emancipated, don’t they HAVE to stay with their parents or other designated legal guardian?
So if the parents go back to their home country their children should go too.

When other immigrants came through Ellis Island their parents wanted to and became citizens- naturally their kids would be also. Illegal aliens who enjoy the fruits of our country but make no effort to become citizens or assimilate are not comparable to the Ellis Island immigrants IMO.

NTWR on May 28, 2010 at 6:01 PM

I love Russia Today… they’re not really any worse than our channels… and I love to speculate how those news anchors go their jobs…

ninjapirate on May 28, 2010 at 5:40 PM

I trust RT far more than the MSM shills here in the USSA.

Radley Balko was on the other day. He called the studio “a little oasis of wow.”

Rae on May 28, 2010 at 6:03 PM

I’m beginning to think this guy is OK.

dragondrop on May 28, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Unfortunately, it’ll take a US Contstitutional amendment, not a simple bill, to change current law.

Jimbo3 on May 28, 2010 at 6:05 PM

No baby is an anchor.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Narutoboy: Look,its gonna be qiuck,illegal women somwhow
gets an America,or Canadian,or poor sap,that
is playing a game,in which he has no glue to
her motives,does the nasty,gets a bun in the
oven,or comes out of the steel foundary,forg
ed into a boat anchor,in which she,through the
pregnantcy,achors her *ss,to said country,and
then some poor guy,or girl,say in some part of
America,inexplicable finds out that through
their taxes now,have to pay,for some anchor
baby,and then…….

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Oh, HELL! Next he’s going to suggest that we should repeal ObamaCare! WHAT A NUT!

MadisonConservative on May 28, 2010 at 5:36 PM

His father introduced a bill to repeal Barry’s Big Medical System yesterday! What a kook!

Rae on May 28, 2010 at 6:05 PM

me no likie rand paul. neither do my 10 ninos and their 25 ninos.

NoBordersJose on May 28, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Ugh,thats somehow,not somwhow,and clue
not glue,and anchor not achor!!

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 6:07 PM

No baby is an anchor.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM

The correct term is JACKPOT baby. A child born to an illegal immigrant opens the door not only to it’s parents but it’s grandparents, brothers and sisters, aunts,uncles, etc, to move here legally.

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

Guardian on May 28, 2010 at 6:08 PM

His father is probably wishing he’d worn a rubber.

Jimbo3 on May 28, 2010 at 6:08 PM

His father is probably wishing he’d worn a rubber.

Jimbo3 on May 28, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Not with a 2 percent fail rate, evidently.

John the Libertarian on May 28, 2010 at 6:09 PM

I liked his talk about using satellites for
immigration!!

Add a laser weapon system,and toast anything
thats not legal at crossing the border,and
I think its good to go!!(sarc).

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Jimbo3 on May 28, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Hey, Jimbo3. See this line here? You just crossed it.

Ban this idiot, Jimbo3.

Wolftech on May 28, 2010 at 6:12 PM

The story of femalie…
A young Mexican woman came across the border to have her baby, it was a girl. She was told to return for a check up in 6 weeks. On her return, during her appointment, they asked(through interpretation) why had she not named her baby yet? She said, umm, but the hospital named the baby for me… Female Gonzales…

tinkerthinker on May 28, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Yeah, geez. We wouldn’t want to be horrible racist teabagger reactionaries like the conservative extremists in… France?

French nationality law is historically based on the principles of jus soli… but children born in France of foreign parents remain foreign until obtaining legal majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_citizenship

Inkblots on May 28, 2010 at 6:13 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 wouldn’t have a problem with it or declaring that from this day forward that the concept of “anchor babies” is no more.

ncjetsfan on May 28, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Poor Popeye!!:)

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 5:56 PM
=======================================
Anchor babies are bred solely for the purpose of their SS# and all the free benefits they bring to illegals, in addition to the sympathy factor they bring just by being born in the US . Thats just the stark reality. Just because idiots don’t want us to see it doesn’t make this reality disappear.

macncheez on May 28, 2010 at 6:01 PM

macncheez: Oh,I fully agree with you,and Brides from other
countries who have an agenda is another problem!
-:)

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Tinkerthinker on May 28, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Ban this one too

Look, this is a place for civil discourse. If you want to post things like that, troll. Take your ignorant rear end back to DailyKos or HuffPo.. and take Jimbo3 with you.

Wolftech on May 28, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Why doesn’t Rand Paul just campaign in Kentucky, instead of giving long interviews to Russian TV? The Russians will probably just use this to paint Paul as a laughing stock anyway, and Russian votes don’t count in Kentucky.

Probably a lot of KY Republicans are wishing they had voted for Trey Grayson…

Steve Z on May 28, 2010 at 6:17 PM

Probably a lot of KY Republicans are wishing they had voted for Trey Grayson…

Steve Z on May 28, 2010 at 6:17 PM

I don’t get this, Steve. Are you seriously telling me, after the past 10 years, what we need is more pandering politicians who don’t speak their mind and pay more attention to polls than to principle? If so, I hope you’re not a voter in my state…

Inkblots on May 28, 2010 at 6:21 PM

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

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

I know I’m probably (mostly) preaching to the choir here, but, the 14th Ammendment was written to ensure that freed slaves would be given citizenship.

It was not written so that people that break the law by illegally entering the country can be rewarded by having a baby that gets automatic citizenship. And, it is a reward. I don’t know what other benefits this opens them up to, but, as far as FEMA is concerned, all a household has to do is come up with a legitimate social security number for at least 1 member of the household and the entire household is eligible for the disaster benefits. My mom had households of 6-13 people coming in for benefits and it was all based on the SSN of an 18 month old baby.

I think the public actually will tolerate children being evicted along with their parents (even if the children were born here), but, they likely won’t have to.

The change in the law would not be retro-active, so, any children already born here will have automatic citizenship.

Once it is known that being born in a U.S. hospital doesn’t automatically = citizenship, people will stop coming here to have anchor babies.

This change, along with others to increase security at the border and penalties for knowingly hiring illegals would make it unprofitable for people to come here illegally.

The problem will largely solve itself.

JadeNYU on May 28, 2010 at 6:21 PM

Damn he sounds far saner than his dad. I LOVE the interview

Kermit on May 28, 2010 at 6:22 PM

No baby is an anchor.

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM

I am not meaning to use a baby for the purpose of keeping a boat stationary. (I think you know that)

Illegal immigrants try to cross the boarder into the US to make sure their children are born here. Given a Social Security Number, and have all the rights of an American.

Than they get on the Gubmint Teet and use social services, schools, Headstart programs, and get on WIC, foodstamps etc.

Anchor babies are prized children among illegal immigrants. They also use them as a shield in order to keep them from being thrown out of the country when caught. “You can’t take me, I have 3 children who are all citizens. Who will take care of them?”

NO.MORE.ANCHOR.BABIES.

portlandon on May 28, 2010 at 6:22 PM

I trust RT far more than the MSM shills here in the USSA.

Radley Balko was on the other day. He called the studio “a little oasis of wow.”

Rae on May 28, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Wow, a Paulnut loves him some Russia Today

shocking! or not, the KGB knows its US audience well.

Pravada 2.0

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/18/russia-today-propaganda-ad-blitz

Two decades after the demise of Pravda, the Kremlin’s 24-hour English language TV channel, Russia Today (RT), is launching its first major advertising blitz across the UK. Dubbed North Korean TV by its detractors, the channel, available on satellite and cable TV, gives an unashamedly pro-Vladimir Putin view of the world, and says it seeks to correct the “biased” western view offered by the BBC and CNN.

Next year the Russian government will spend $1.4 billion (£866m) on international propaganda – more than on fighting unemployment. In January RT launches a Spanish service aimed at Latin America, a region of growing Kremlin geopolitical interest; RT already broadcasts in Arabic.

The Kremlin has trebled the budgets for its main state news agencies, Ria Novosti and ITAR-Tass, despite Russia’s deep economic crisis; there is a paid-for monthly supplement in the Daily Telegraph, Russia Now, and a revival of the Soviet-era radio station Voice of Russia.

The Kremlin employs two major PR agencies, Ketchum and GPlus, and in London uses Portland PR. And then there are the angry bloggers – a shadowy army of Russian nationalists who are active on western newspaper websites, including the Guardian’s Comment is free site. Anyone who dares to criticise Russia’s leaders, or point out some of the country’s deficiencies, is immediately branded a CIA spy or worse. “They [the Kremlin] are coming to realise that information matters and that control of information internationally matters even more,” says Evgeny Morozov, a Yahoo! fellow at Georgetown University’s institute for the study of diplomacy.

Morozov, who is writing a book on how authoritarian regimes are exploiting the internet, said the Kremlin was taking a more “aggressive” approach following last year’s war in Georgia.

The Russian government lost the PR battle over the conflict, at least initially, and failed to get its message across to shivering European consumers during two recent gas wars with Ukraine. “They have realised it is only by controlling what gets printed in the international media they can advance their hard policy agenda items,” Morozov says. Current Russian aims, he says, include thwarting Nato expansion and winning recognition for Moscow’s puppet states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Morozov takes a dim view of RT – pointing out that it has a predilection for fringe guests and discredited conspiracy theorists. “For me it’s a comedy channel. You watch it to see how badly mangled Russia’s attempts at influencing foreign opinion are,” he suggests, adding that Russia has moved from Pravda to Pravda 2.0.

Yeah, not shocking Pravada 2.0 seeks out Paulnuts.

jp on May 28, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Why doesn’t Rand Paul just campaign in Kentucky, instead of giving long interviews to Russian TV? The Russians will probably just use this to paint Paul as a laughing stock anyway, and Russian votes don’t count in Kentucky.

Probably a lot of KY Republicans are wishing they had voted for Trey Grayson…

Steve Z on May 28, 2010 at 6:17 PM

because they love his Father and have been propping him up for awhile now, and it then gets replayed at Lew Rockwell and other Paulnut sites.

The modern KGB have our Useful Idiots well targeted and infiltrated.

jp on May 28, 2010 at 6:25 PM

I cannot figure out why anyone should be able to benefit from an illegal act. If the law were followed, the birthed person would not have been born in this country. Since, unless they were born in a hospital and the birth was documented there is no proof they were born here anyway. If someone is here illegally, they cannot expect to confer citizenship on any offspring. That is just silly and a hinderance to deportation.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on May 28, 2010 at 6:25 PM

You know, I like what Rand said in this interview. He really does seem like the kind of principled, common-sense conservative we need to stave off debt-driven disaster. And between Frum and MSDNC, he’s definitely making all the right enemies. I think I might send him a few bucks.

Inkblots on May 28, 2010 at 6:26 PM

I’m wondering whether the dingbats running under the GOP banner have any idea where the Republican Party came from? They really think the party is just for disaffected Southern Democrats. Seriously repealing the 14th amendment? The amendment that the GOP had to go to war for to ensure slaves are free? (Oops, there I go with my controversial remarks for even saying that the Civil War had something to do with slavery.) If you’re going to be an apologist for the Confederacy, leave the party and join the Democrats.

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

Stop anchor babies. Stop chain migration.

Oink on May 28, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Most European countries have that as law: any foreigner giving birth in their country, will not consider the child a citizen, but a foreigner as well.

I’m with Rand Paul in this position.

cubachi on May 28, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Stop anchor babies. Stop chain migration.

Oink on May 28, 2010 at 6:26 PM

And while we’re at it, free Tibet!

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 6:27 PM

This is interesting!
============================

Counterterror Adviser Defends Jihad as ‘Legitimate Tenet of Islam’
=======================

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of “political, economic and social forces,” but said that those plotting attacks on the Uni ted States should not be described in “religious terms.”

He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not “terrorism,” because terrorism is a “tactic,” and not terror, because terror is a “state of mind” — though Brennan’s title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word “terrorism” in it. But then Brennan said that the word “jihad” should not be applied either.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/27/counterterror-adviser-defends-jihad-legitimate-tenet-islam/
=======================================================

This is under the radar,with Sestak,and Oil leak,
so,when does Brennan resign!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 6:29 PM

I don’t know enough about Rand Paul yet to have an opinion, but he is absolutely right about this issue. Granting citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens encourages illegal immigration.

novaculus on May 28, 2010 at 6:30 PM

Oh,I fully agree with you,and Brides from other
countries who have an agenda is another problem!
-:)

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Oh yeah, the mut’ah brides,it was a problem in Canada but now its going to be big in US too. What do’ mut’ah brides’ do to the society ? Look @ Europe and their shariafication

macncheez on May 28, 2010 at 6:32 PM

And while we’re at it, free Tibet!

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Nah. Didn’t you hear? The Dali Lama is a Marxist!

portlandon on May 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM

They really think the party is just for disaffected Southern Democrats. Seriously repealing the 14th amendment?…

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

Say there, friend. Where exactly did anyone suggest that? Perhaps you are arguing that automatic citizenship for the offspring of illegal immigrants is built into the 14th Amendment, and so to suggest that this practice is wrong is to demand its repeal? Well, let’s glance at the plain language of the Amendment:

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.

I’ve bolded what seems to me to be the key phrase. If someone is here illegally, that is, is undocumented, they aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the government, are they? After all, if they were, since they are here unlawfully, they would have been deported, and thus, not been able to give birth here. Seems pretty simple to me.

Inkblots on May 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM

I not sure where the scandal is? It just sound logical. I’m starting to like this Paul, his father not so much.

whbates on May 28, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Pack them up and send them back. No citizenship.

moochy on May 28, 2010 at 6:42 PM

If someone is here illegally, that is, is undocumented, they aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the government, are they?

Inkblots on May 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM

Uh, the mother is still illegal, the baby BORN IN THE UNITED STATES is a citizen.

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

the Kremlin’s TV house organ.

I was thinking MSNBC.

Anyway, Rand Pauls’ latest “scandal” is a winner for him, then. Come on, Democrats. Use this one.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 6:46 PM

Watching Rand Paul is like watching the beginning of Jerry Maguire.

Jay Mohr’s character: “Finally, somebody said it.”

Sure, Jerry gets fired in the short term, but he’s a winner in the end.

Go Rand Paul!

BuckeyeSam on May 28, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Well, on that topic, Rand is right.

dczombie on May 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM

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.

–If they are in the US, they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Jimbo3 on May 28, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Stop anchor babies. Stop chain migration.

Oink on May 28, 2010 at 6:26 PM
And while we’re at it, free Tibet!

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Will you PLEASE stop eating paint chips….

Is there ANY other country in the world that allows birthright citizenship and then, eighteen years later, chain migration?
Every other country in the world is interested in self-preservation….A corrupt, third world country dumping its uneducated welfare class and criminals on us while we fight about being ‘humanitarian’ enough is suicidal.

HornetSting on May 28, 2010 at 6:53 PM

And while we’re at it, free Tibet!

Narutoboy on May 28, 2010 at 6:27 PM

How about FREE AMERICA! Good lord, grow up.

upinak on May 28, 2010 at 6:54 PM

I have a true story about the lack of birthright citizenship. I went to hear a Holocaust survivor speak this past Tuesday. His ancestors had fled Spain for the Ottoman Empire’s Greece, when the Spanish Inquisition began in 1492. Though living Ottoman Greece, his family was considered citizens of Spain for the next four centuries. When the Nazis came, they couldn’t kill him because of his Spanish citizenship. [For diplomatic reasons, the Nazis avoided killing the Jews of neutral nations like Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.] Bottom line: he survived the Holocaust due to Turkish not granting citizenship to immigrants.

[Admission of a fact that doesn't fit my story well: the Greeks offered his family citizenship in 1921 when they took his town over from the Turks, but they kept the Spanish citizenship.]

thuja on May 28, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Uh, the mother is still illegal, the baby BORN IN THE UNITED STATES is a citizen.

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

Well, A.C., I was arguing that if the parents aren’t under the jurisdiction of the U.S., their child isn’t either, and therefore is not Constitutionally required to receive automatic citizenship. I would hope that the courts, taking into account the language and original intent of the Amendment, would not strike down a law clarifying that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens of the United States.

However, even if they did strike it down (and given the broad tenor of the judiciary these days, I wouldn’t be surprised by that), that doesn’t mean anyone is even thinking about repealing the 14th Amendment. All that would be required was an additional amendment clarifying what it means to be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. Easier said than done of course, but there’s nothing wrong with advocating for it, even if it’s unlikely to happen. And it’s a fair sight different than calling for the repeal of what we can all agree is a good and important Amendment to the Constitution!

Inkblots on May 28, 2010 at 7:00 PM

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 6:15 PM
====================================
Oh yeah, the mut’ah brides,it was a problem in Canada but now its going to be big in US too. What do’ mut’ah brides’ do to the society ? Look @ Europe and their shariafication

macncheez on May 28, 2010 at 6:32 PM

macncheez: Londonstan comes to mind!:)

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 7:00 PM

One simple solution to eliminating illegal birth right citizenship would be to declare that any birthing area of citizens from another country becomes the territory of that country during the time of that birth — Sort of like a floating embassy.

drfredc on May 28, 2010 at 7:01 PM

Good lord, grow up.

upinak on May 28, 2010 at 6:54 PM

You’re asking someone who goes by the handle ‘Narutoboy’ to grow up? I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Inkblots on May 28, 2010 at 7:03 PM

This is hilarious!

All this shows is how many of you have never traveled outside of the United States!

How many other countries do you think confer citizenship to people who illegally cross their borders?

tetriskid on May 28, 2010 at 7:04 PM

How many other countries do you think confer citizenship to people who illegally cross their borders?

tetriskid on May 28, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Well, pretty much nowhere in Europe, I know that much.

Inkblots on May 28, 2010 at 7:05 PM

macncheez on May 28, 2010 at 6:32 PM

macncheez: Londonstan comes to mind!:)

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 7:00 PM

I spoke to a woman from England a couple of year ago…about Londonstan and the problems with migration of muslims……and their habit of ‘procreation on steroids’
She was so very thankful that she was finally able to become a citizen of the United States…her former country is a shell of its former self…..
We are slowly bleeding to death, like the UK, because of their own stupidity…we have a chance to push back, to stop it, before it is too late and our country too is a former shell of itself.

HornetSting on May 28, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Uh, the mother is still illegal, the baby BORN IN THE UNITED STATES is a citizen.

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

California….hmmm. I hear you’ve got some money problems out there, all of your ‘top ten most wanted’ are illegal aliens, and you’ve got an idiot running the ship aground….
You better stop drinking the water….

HornetSting on May 28, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Londonstan comes to mind!:)

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Prepare to be surprised,
http://www.islamawareness.net/Marriage/Mutah/

combine mut’ah and chain migration, and within a time frame of 10-15 yrs, we have a powder keg waiting for a spark

macncheez on May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM

You better stop drinking the water….

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

I’m with him, but for a compromise, let’s not let parents stay here just because they’ve got an anchor baby. Let them choose to have their kid deported with them, or leave them here. Eventually the overload of unwanted children in the foster care system (Hispanic and Black kids have a harder time getting adopted as is), illegal immigrants will realize that they’re giving their kids just as crappy an existance here as they’d have back in Mexico.

Problem solved.

RachDubya on May 28, 2010 at 7:20 PM

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.

Jimbo3 on May 28, 2010 at 6:53 PM

And you sir, are a complete ignorant twit.

Anyone present in this nation without virtue of official government approval and documentation is here unlawfully.

The fact that they can be can be issued a traffic ticket doesn’t make them ‘under the jurisdiction’ thereof of squat.

My dog has more solid documentation than any illegal alien.

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

jp on May 28, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Oh why don’t you go hump your favorite central planner some more, you fascist.

Rae on May 28, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Is Paul trying to compete with Christie for my affection?

DFCtomm on May 28, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Thank Teddy Kennedy for this idiotic change – although he claimed it would have no impact on the composition of our immigrant population.

The statistics seem to indicate that it is the anchor babies who somehow do not inherit their parents’ work ethic. Gangs, drugs, welfare problems are exacerbated in the next generation. Assimilation is key, and it is not occurring.

And the longer term, this will be the Trojan horse that destroys this country, even as it is currently destroying Europe.

skeeter on May 28, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Exit question: Er, are we sure Rand Paul’s a libertarian?

His libertarianism is in less question than those that trendily throw the name around to sound cool… that said, I have a feeling he wouldn’t fit in at the LP.

MeatHeadinCA on May 28, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2