It just keeps getting better and better. Now he's against the 14th Amendment.
U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul is stirring it up again, this time by saying he opposes citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are illegal immigrants.
Paul, who a week ago won the GOP primary, told a Russian TV station in a clip circulating on political Web sites Friday that he wants to block citizenship to those children.
...
Legislation dubbed the Birthright Citizenship Act was introduced in the House last year seeking to prevent citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants even though the 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees citizenship to everyone born in the U.S. More than 90 lawmakers signed on as co-sponsors.
Oh, and you know it's all about the protection of our society and not about politics. Oh, wait...
Paul told the TV station that partisan politics may be at play in not stopping illegal immigration.
"I'm not opposed to letting people come in and work and labor in our country," Paul said. "But I think what we should do is we shouldn't provide an easy route to citizenship. A lot of this is about demographics. If you look at new immigrants from Mexico, they register three to one Democrat, so the Democratic Party is for easy citizenship and allowing them to vote. I think we need to address that."
It's a great attention-getter but it's just not that big an issue IMO. Standard politics in play here.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
I do think that a kid born to illegal parents should not be considered a US citizen. The accidental (or intentional) act of having a kid in this country when you have no business being here should not make your child somehow a full US citizen.
There have been several incidents in my area over the last couple years involving parents with US citizen children being deported.......and the bleeding hearts demand they be allowed to stay because of the children.
FTWalker wrote:Perhaps a modification is necessary - maybe it should no longer grant automatic citizenship.
Maybe we should retroactively start with Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, amongst others? This is one of the stupidest things I've heard out of his mouth.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
FTWalker wrote:Perhaps a modification is necessary - maybe it should no longer grant automatic citizenship.
Maybe we should retroactively start with Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, amongst others? This is one of the stupidest things I've heard out of his mouth.
Can we just get rid of (permanently deport to anywhere but here) those three and call it a day? Please?
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
Personally, I was disappointed to learn that Rand Paul was *not* in fact named for the Prophetess of Objectivism, and that his name is actually Randall. How deep do the lies go, and who is involved??? Tony Randall? Randall Flagg?
Of course, my own sister (born in 1965, during Dad's staunch libertarian phase) is named "Ayn," so I'm touchy about these things.
Paul Roberts wrote:Of course, my own sister (born in 1965, during Dad's staunch libertarian phase) is named "Ayn," so I'm touchy about these things.
Well if it helps the "true" libertarian stance is open borders. So Mr. Paul is merely pandering to his voter base.
kind of like a cloud I was up way up in the sky and I was feeling some feelings that I couldn't believe; sometimes I don't believe them myself but I decided I was never coming down
Last edited by Fireball on Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
Last edited by Fireball on Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
Last edited by Fireball on Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
I saw a commercial on late night TV. It said, "Forget everything you know about slipcovers." So I did. And it was a load off my mind. Then the commercial tried to sell me slipcovers, and I didn't know what the hell they were. -- Mitch Hedberg
FTWalker wrote:Perhaps a modification is necessary - maybe it should no longer grant automatic citizenship.
What a great idea. Then we can pass legislation prohibiting people from selected countries from becoming (naturalized) citizens. Then their children won't be able to be citizens either. Nor their grandchildren. Ad infinitum.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
FTWalker wrote:Perhaps a modification is necessary - maybe it should no longer grant automatic citizenship.
What a great idea. Then we can pass legislation prohibiting people from selected countries from becoming (naturalized) citizens. Then their children won't be able to be citizens either. Nor their grandchildren. Ad infinitum.
Selected countries? I believe the agenda is religions.
FTWalker wrote:Perhaps a modification is necessary - maybe it should no longer grant automatic citizenship.
What a great idea. Then we can pass legislation prohibiting people from selected countries from becoming (naturalized) citizens. Then their children won't be able to be citizens either. Nor their grandchildren. Ad infinitum.
Selected countries? I believe the agenda is religions.
Um, I'm going to assume you're kidding about the religious agenda (since at some point Mexicans were mentioned here), but it really doesn't matter. We've done the "prohibited from becoming citizens" thing in the past. What's to stop us from doing it again?
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Wouldn't that suck if your 15 minutes of infamy were to be the guy curb stopping a helpless female hippie protester being pinned to the ground?
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Wouldn't that suck if your 15 minutes of infamy were to be the guy curb stopping a helpless female hippie protester being pinned to the ground?
I could think of worse 15 minutes of infamy....
But I think I would have forced her to bathe instead. Hippies hate that.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
FTWalker wrote:Perhaps a modification is necessary - maybe it should no longer grant automatic citizenship.
I see where you're going with this, but I'm not sure a newborn would be able to physically grasp the pencil for the test, let alone recite constitutional amendments from memory.
Wouldn't that suck if your 15 minutes of infamy were to be the guy curb stopping a helpless female hippie protester being pinned to the ground?
I could think of worse 15 minutes of infamy....
But I think I would have forced her to bathe instead. Hippies hate that.
Dude, I wouldn't want to take a shower with you either.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
FTWalker wrote:Perhaps a modification is necessary - maybe it should no longer grant automatic citizenship.
I see where you're going with this, but I'm not sure a newborn would be able to physically grasp the pencil for the test, let alone recite constitutional amendments from memory.
Bit of a delayed response but hey lets run with it. I actually think he is going a bit different angle with it. That angle could be either the only citizenship that is automatic is to the child of 2 US citizens (or 1 really) or that no one is allowed to be a citizen until they pass the test. The first is being a bit of an elitist while the second would have some interesting effects. Those effects would effectively remove a significant amount of people from the potential voting pool as those with learning disabilities or who are illiterate would have a significantly harder time passing the test, however on the positive side it would make more voters knowledgeable about the country's history and laws allowing for them to make better informed decisions at the ballot box. So it comes down to is it worth being discriminatory to some people to have a better educated voting populous? I seriously doubt either could ever come to fruition but it would be an interesting thought experiment to see how that would pan out in the end.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."--George Orwell
I can't believe some of you somehow do not see a problem with people sneaking across the border and then having an anchor baby so that they don't have to go through normal channels of LEGAL immigration.
How did opposing illegal means for immigration suddenly become racist for that matter? If someone is going to make their first act of coming to this country breaking or ignoring the laws of this country, why should we want them to remain here?
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
msduncan wrote:
How did opposing illegal means for immigration suddenly become racist for that matter? If someone is going to make their first act of coming to this country breaking or ignoring the laws of this country, why should we want them to remain here?
It's not, and as far as I'm aware no one here is arguing that it is.
Race is obviously relevant to the debate, and *some* of the people opposing illegal immigration do so partly based on racism (indeed, it would be illogical for a racist to not oppose illegal immigration), but it's certainly not true and I haven't seen it argued here that opposing illegal immigration = racism.
msduncan wrote:I can't believe some of you somehow do not see a problem with people sneaking across the border and then having an anchor baby so that they don't have to go through normal channels of LEGAL immigration.
I can't believe you love sweeping generalizations this much. See, disbelief when someone doesn't explicitly agree with you is a tool even non-conservatives can use.
msduncan wrote:I can't believe some of you somehow do not see a problem with people sneaking across the border and then having an anchor baby so that they don't have to go through normal channels of LEGAL immigration.
How did opposing illegal means for immigration suddenly become racist for that matter? If someone is going to make their first act of coming to this country breaking or ignoring the laws of this country, why should we want them to remain here?
How does having a baby make it unecessary for the parents to immigrate legally? The problem is with enforcement. Not with citizen babies. Family reunification is not an easy process.
Anyway, as I understand it the 14th Amendment was written and enacted as part of reconstruction an specifically to counteract the Dred Scott decision. It would be hard to call for its repeal without sounding racist.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
I don't think it needs to be repealed. I think it needs to be modified.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
msduncan wrote:I can't believe some of you somehow do not see a problem with people sneaking across the border and then having an anchor baby so that they don't have to go through normal channels of LEGAL immigration.
How did opposing illegal means for immigration suddenly become racist for that matter? If someone is going to make their first act of coming to this country breaking or ignoring the laws of this country, why should we want them to remain here?
Let's assume for the moment, for the sake of argument, that giving citizenship to babies born here as a result of parental lawbreaking is a Bad Thing.
Query:
How many anchor babies are there?
Are there enough to justify a Constitutional amendment? Or is this simply a crowd-pleasing wedge issue?
That strikes me as a straightforward factual question . . . .
msduncan wrote:I don't think it needs to be repealed. I think it needs to be modified.
This thread isn't just about you. Many candidates and their supporters (including Paul and his) want the 14th repealed. And that's why race comes into the discussion.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
msduncan wrote:I don't think it needs to be repealed. I think it needs to be modified.
This thread isn't just about you. Many candidates and their supporters (including Paul and his) want the 14th repealed. And that's why race comes into the discussion.
I know that some candidates have suggested repealing one clause of the 14th Amendment -- the one granting birthright citizenship. But I haven't seen anyone advocating repealing the whole thing, including the due process and equal protection clauses. Do you have a citation?
(Granted, I rather doubt some of them are conversant with the different parts of the Amendment and the significance thereof in American law -- but then I'm a coastal elite.)
If only she had carried a "Don't Tread On Me" flag.
The national political discourse, on TV and on the Al Gore Webs, is geared towards there being one good guy and one bad guy in any incident.
In real life, it's entirely possible that, at the same time, (1) the Ron Paul supporter was a despicable thug who used excessive force, and (2) the protester was an attention-seeking nut with a history of misconduct trying to start an incident.
Anyway, the Paultard has apologized. Sort of. For the appearance of it.
Stomper wrote:"I'm sorry that it came to that, and I apologize if it appeared overly forceful, but I was concerned about Rand's safety," Profitt said, adding that it was not as bad as it looked on video and blamed police for not intervening.
If only she had carried a "Don't Tread On Me" flag.
The national political discourse, on TV and on the Al Gore Webs, is geared towards there being one good guy and one bad guy in any incident.
In real life, it's entirely possible that, at the same time, (1) the Ron Paul supporter was a despicable thug who used excessive force, and (2) the protester was an attention-seeking nut with a history of misconduct trying to start an incident.
While that's true, I think the resulting media coverage is justified. Attention-seeking protestors are a dime a dozen at political events. Head-stompers are less common.
Paul Roberts wrote:Anyway, the Paultard has apologized. Sort of. For the appearance of it.
Stomper wrote:"I'm sorry that it came to that, and I apologize if it appeared overly forceful, but I was concerned about Rand's safety," Profitt said, adding that it was not as bad as it looked on video and blamed police for not intervening.
That's the worst non-apology I've ever seen.
Although I'm not sure I'd be running around giving all these interviews if I was him. I'm sure the victim will appreciate it in the inevitable civil case, though.
"I am running for president to return our country to the principles of liberty and limited government," Paul said on his new website.
...
For now, the nomination is up for grabs with no clear front-runner. Paul came in third place at 12% in a CNN/ORC International Poll of Republicans. Bush led the pack at 16% while Walker came in second at 13%.
Paul scares me. I think he has a shot. Way more than Cruz ever will. He has a lot people hoodwinked into thinking he is limited government and moderate at the same time. He is neither.
I saw his speech where, like all of the rest of them he considers himself a Washington outsider and a protector against career politicians, when he's a second generation career politician.
Kentucky is one of the most corrupt states in the unions.
Kentucky has one of the worst federal dollars spent to federal dollars contributed ratios in the country. There is no evidence at all of small government from Paul.