Octopus Overlords

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.

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.

Perhaps a modification is necessary - maybe it should no longer grant automatic citizenship.

I really doubt that you're going to get the legislatures of 38 states to approve it.

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.

Pyperkub wrote:

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?

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.

.

.

.

...

So I'm guessing you're not a Republican?

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.

Bad Demographic wrote:

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.

Paul Roberts wrote:

Bad Demographic wrote:

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?

The sideshow hasn't lost any steam: outside of a recent debate, Rand Paul's supporters tackled and stepped on a liberal protestor.

AWS260 wrote:The sideshow hasn't lost any steam: outside of a recent debate, Rand Paul's supporters tackled and stepped on a liberal protestor.

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?

LawBeefaroni wrote:

AWS260 wrote:The sideshow hasn't lost any steam: outside of a recent debate, Rand Paul's supporters tackled and stepped on a liberal protestor.

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.

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.

msduncan wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

AWS260 wrote:The sideshow hasn't lost any steam: outside of a recent debate, Rand Paul's supporters tackled and stepped on a liberal protestor.

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.

hepcat wrote:

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.

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?

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.

I don't think it needs to be repealed. I think it needs to be modified.

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.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

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.)

Rand Paul stomper requests apology from stompee.

If only she had carried a "Don't Tread On Me" flag.

AWS260 wrote:Rand Paul stomper requests apology from stompee.

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.

Mr. Fed wrote:

AWS260 wrote:Rand Paul stomper requests apology from stompee.

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.

Exodor wrote:That's the worst non-apology I've ever seen.

My thought exactly.

Now coming to the center ring:

"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.

If you want to amend the amendment, at least exclude children born to US citizens in Canada.

Retroactively.

I think Paul will be a contender. One cannot dismiss him out of hand, unlike Cruz who's merely entertainment.