Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 58 Posts

·
Here's my safety Sir
Joined
·
14,677 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It's a no brainer, He gets it whats wrong in DC

Rand Paul: No citizenship for children of illegal immigrants




By Bill Estep
Lexington Herald-Leader
Children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants should not get citizenship, Republican U.S. Senate nominee Rand Paul told an English-language Russian television channel shortly after his May 18 primary election victory.

The comment, which surfaced online Friday, stirred the pot again in Kentucky's Senate race.

"We're the only country I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen," Paul told RT, a Russian news channel. "And I think that that should stop also."

Paul, a Bowling Green eye surgeon, has previously said every piece of federal legislation should specify its basis in the Constitution, but some observers called Paul’s position on the children of illegal immigrants unconstitutional.

"As his opposition to birthright citizenship indicates, however, he seems quite comfortable contravening the express words of the Constitution," said a posting on thinkprogress.org, voted best liberal blog in one 2006 competition.

Those "express words" are in the 14th Amendment, which says anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen.

The amendment was passed in the wake of the Civil War. In addition to defining citizenship, it says states can't deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without due process, or deny equal protection of the law to anyone.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/28/1653745/rand-paul-no-citizenship-for-children.html
 

·
May the Lord be with us
Joined
·
5,784 Posts
Yeah, Ron Paul knows what's wrong in DC alright; the Fourteenth Amendment. :rolleyes:

...by the way, that's sarcasm.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that former slaves in the South would be American citizens. It had nothing to do with granting American citizenship to pregnancy tourists and others. This is a perversion of the intent and its misinterpretation and misuse has and continues to drain our resources at unsustainable rates.

Go Rand Paul!!! :thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,086 Posts
Unfortunatly , one of the tricks illegals use to stay in this country is to have an "anchor baby" . But going against or changing the 14th amendment is not the answer . The answer , like everyone with common sense knows , is to secure the border and enforce the existing immigration laws .
So far what I here from Rand Paul is a big disapointment . I think he's in over his head .
 

·
Apostle to the Orthodox
Joined
·
393 Posts
Well, there is a legitimate argument there. The "situs" of residency for a child has always been the place where his parents are domiciled. So there's some question about whether a colonist not lawfully present in the United States can have a baby "born ... in the United States" can be "a citizen of the United States and the State in which he resides". If a baby's parents are legally residents of Mexico, then he cannot be a citizen of Minnesota, because he does not "reside" in Minnesota.

Let's not forget that this was a special purpose amendment designed to ensure that the children of noncitizen black slaves (many of whom were descended of people who had been physically present in this country for over two hundred years) would be citizens.
 

·
Retrofitted Sheeple
Joined
·
30,609 Posts
Wrong. If a writ of certiorari is brought to the SCOTUS - before the Kenyan stacks the deck on the SCOTUS - you may well find that your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is incorrect.
I don't think so, but it's true that SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the specific case.

There have been a few indirect rulings however such as United States v Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v Doe which indirectly support the premise that even illegal immigrants are 'under the jusrisdiction' of the United States and therefore, their children born here would be citizens.
 

·
Retrofitted Sheeple
Joined
·
30,609 Posts
Would you please quote the exact wording in our Constitution that allows a border jumper to claim US citizenship for there offspring?
14th Amendment Section 1 said:
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.
It's pretty clearly written. If you're born in the US and subject to it's laws, you're a citizen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,086 Posts
That is absolutely correct. The 14th was meant to keep Southern states from labeling slaves as African non-citizens who can vote. It was never intended to create anchor babies.
What about all the people who have come here legally ?
My grandparents immigrated LEGALLY . Are you saying my parents , who were born here , shouldn't have been considered citizens ? Were they anchor babies ? And if they're not supposed to be citizens , then should I not be one either .
The illegals are abusing and twisting the 14th amendment to serve their purpose . Since they are breaking the law by coming here illegaly , then the 14th or any part of the constitution shouldn't apply to them or their kids .
If we change the constitution because of this illegal problem , where will it end . It will be a slippery slope towards changing or deleating other ammendments . How about the 1st or 2nd ammendment ? I'm sure Obama and the liberal , progressives would love that .
 

·
Hunter
Joined
·
2,994 Posts
It's pretty clearly written. If you're born in the US and subject to it's laws, you're a citizen.
so, seeing as you're firmly in favor of following the "letter of the law" and not the original intention of the writer(s), you surely then must be against the termination of children in the womb as it's under the "privacy right", no? there's no "A word" in that "privacy ammendment"....no?

Don't bother to actually answer as I already know a dodge/weave/nothing will follow....
 
1 - 20 of 58 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top