Ron Paul on Birthright Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul has introduced a bill to end birthright citizenship for children of illegals (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj110-46), wile Gov. Rick Perry has given them in-state tuition.

Ron Paul remains the strongest on illegal immigration.

[Enforcer]

Ron Paul has introduced a bill to end birthright citizenship for children of illegals (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj110-46), wile Gov. Rick Perry has given them in-state tuition.

Ron Paul remains the strongest on illegal immigration.

Let's get four things straight:

1) The Constitution provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States. Ron Paul can suggest Congress pass any bill they want. But, you cannot change the Constitution except by an amendment. Ron Paul claims to be a constitutionalist, but George Washington admonished us:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

2) You cannot uncitizen people. Ron Paul cannot get an ex post facto law past Congress as such is outlawed by Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution

3) Shame on you for calling people "illegals." Even if being in the United States were a crime (which it is not) a person is not an "illegal" any freaking thing until they've been arrested, booked, made bail, go a preliminary hearing, get bound over, go through the discovery process, have a trial, are found guilty, and sentenced for a crime

4) It is not illegal to come into the United States nor is it a crime to be in the United States without papers. At best, coming in the United States without human registration papers is a federal CIVIL misdemeanor. For Ron Paul or anyone else to pander to the xenophobes in the United States over this issue is despicable. The real issue here is that the anti - immigrant lobby is demanding that we uphold immigration laws rammed through Congress by liberal Ted Kennedy and those laws do not address the needs of the 21st Century and they violate the Constitution.

This is one area of the law that Ron Paul is a politician and not a statesman on. But, for ANYONE to support him on that in one breath and then invoke the Constitution is pure hypocrisy.

[Enforcer]

Ron Paul has introduced a bill to end birthright citizenship for children of illegals (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj110-46), wile Gov. Rick Perry has given them in-state tuition.

Ron Paul remains the strongest on illegal immigration.

Why do we get upset when politicians flat out LIE about the person we're backing and then we support people on our own side LYING to the voters.

Let me tell you something: I am not going to vote for Rick Perry in the primary. But, I am livid with anger at the OP here on this thread. Rick Perry did not give in - state tuition to anybody, including the children of people this individual wants to call "illegals."

What Rick Perry did was to sign a piece of legislation passed through both houses of the state legislature. There were a total of three votes against the bill - two in the Senate and one in the House. And we're talking about a Republican majority in the legislature!

Rick Perry's immigration policies added $17.7 BILLION DOLLARS to the Gross Domestic Product of the state. The facts kind of fly in the face of the racists that make these outrageous claims that it "cost" the state to have undocumented Guest Workers in the state, when in fact, it is highly profitable to the government and the citizenry.

[PierzStyx]

Let's get four things straight:

1) The Constitution provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States. Ron Paul can suggest Congress pass any bill they want. But, you cannot change the Constitution except by an amendment. Ron Paul claims to be a constitutionalist, but George Washington admonished us:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

2) You cannot uncitizen people. Ron Paul cannot get an ex post facto law past Congress as such is outlawed by Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution

3) Shame on you for calling people "illegals." Even if being in the United States were a crime (which it is not) a person is not an "illegal" any freaking thing until they've been arrested, booked, made bail, go a preliminary hearing, get bound over, go through the discovery process, have a trial, are found guilty, and sentenced for a crime

4) It is not illegal to come into the United States nor is it a crime to be in the United States without papers. At best, coming in the United States without human registration papers is a federal CIVIL misdemeanor. For Ron Paul or anyone else to pander to the xenophobes in the United States over this issue is despicable. The real issue here is that the anti - immigrant lobby is demanding that we uphold immigration laws rammed through Congress by liberal Ted Kennedy and those laws do not address the needs of the 21st Century and they violate the Constitution.

This is one area of the law that Ron Paul is a politician and not a statesman on. But, for ANYONE to support him on that in one breath and then invoke the Constitution is pure hypocrisy.


Actually lets break it down, the citizenship Clause reads: 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.

1. You will notice I italicized that portion because it is essential to understanding this clause. Only people who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the US upon either birth or naturalization. The legal means through which this is accomplished is the process of legal immigration. Undocumented workers (i.e. illegals) are not technically under the jurisdiction of the US, having entered the country secretly and illegally. They are still citizens of the country from which they came, and without going through the legal immigration process that grants them legal access to this nation which also places them under the legal protection of the nation which "subject(s) them to the jurisdiction of the United States" they are neither citizens nor subject of this country but still technically subject to the jurisdiction of the nation form which they came. Being neither naturalized (because they are undocumented) and not under the "jurisdiction of [the United States]" because of the way they illegally entered the nation, their children are not citizens as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. Merely being born here doesn't grant you citizen status. You have to be born either to documented legal immigrants who through the immigration process have made themselves "subject to the jurisdiction of [the United States]" or be born to a naturalized citizen in order to be born a citizen. That is what the Constitution has to say on the matter. Seeing how Dr. Paul seeks to restore this Constitutional definition of what constitutes a citizen he cannot at the same time be an enemy of the Constitution. In this case you speak from an area of ignorance, not strength. Dr. Paul's way is one again shown to be the Constitutional way, while the way you describe is the way that is flawed based on an incorrect and only partial acceptance of the full Constitutional law.

2. It is not uncitizenizing them if they were never citizens to begin with. It is restoring the rule of law, and actually better for undocumented families as their families would no longer face sundering because the kids are wrongfully considered citizens while their parents are not and are therefore shipped off.

3. Get over it. It is slightly demeaning yes, but not altogether an inapt description. Perhaps brutal, but true.

4. In case you don't understand this, even civil misdemeanors are crimes and are therefore "illegal." In any case, illegal immigration is a federal crime i.e. a felony.

"Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

* Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
* Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
* Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense."

In conclusion, Dr. Paul is not a hypocrite, you are just ignorant.

[Enforcer]

Actually lets break it down, the citizenship Clause reads: 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.

1. You will notice I italicized that portion because it is essential to understanding this clause. Only people who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the US upon either birth or naturalization. The legal means through which this is accomplished is the process of legal immigration. Undocumented workers (i.e. illegals) are not technically under the jurisdiction of the US, having entered the country secretly and illegally. They are still citizens of the country from which they came, and without going through the legal immigration process that grants them legal access to this nation which also places them under the legal protection of the nation which "subject(s) them to the jurisdiction of the United States" they are neither citizens nor subject of this country but still technically subject to the jurisdiction of the nation form which they came. Being neither naturalized (because they are undocumented) and not under the "jurisdiction of [the United States]" because of the way they illegally entered the nation, their children are not citizens as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. Merely being born here doesn't grant you citizen status. You have to be born either to documented legal immigrants who through the immigration process have made themselves "subject to the jurisdiction of [the United States]" or be born to a naturalized citizen in order to be born a citizen. That is what the Constitution has to say on the matter. Seeing how Dr. Paul seeks to restore this Constitutional definition of what constitutes a citizen he cannot at the same time be an enemy of the Constitution. In this case you speak from an area of ignorance, not strength. Dr. Paul's way is one again shown to be the Constitutional way, while the way you describe is the way that is flawed based on an incorrect and only partial acceptance of the full Constitutional law.

2. It is not uncitizenizing them if they were never citizens to begin with. It is restoring the rule of law, and actually better for undocumented families as their families would no longer face sundering because the kids are wrongfully considered citizens while their parents are not and are therefore shipped off.

3. Get over it. It is slightly demeaning yes, but not altogether an inapt description. Perhaps brutal, but true.

4. In case you don't understand this, even civil misdemeanors are crimes and are therefore "illegal." In any case, illegal immigration is a federal crime i.e. a felony.

"Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

* Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
* Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
* Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense."

In conclusion, Dr. Paul is not a hypocrite, you are just ignorant.

I spent six years working in immigration law. My last case involved a young boy whose parents entered the United States without papers. In court, the county had their attorney, the state had representation as well as the federal government and the Honduran government. I presented the case and won it. The judge RULED the boy was an American citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. (For the record, I did no research on that case and thought if the xenophobes with that silly ass argument you provided were right, I'd lose. It sounds good, but it is not legally right. )

And no, civil violations of the law are NOT a crime. The very law you cite states that it is IMPROPER to enter the United States without papers, NOT a crime. It's in a civil section of the law. You are lying to the people on this board. For instance, here is a part of the law you did NOT quote:

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250

A $250 fine is not a felony by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, in Title 8 it carries no criminal penalties for Improper Entry and if you lie to the authorities, try to elude them, etc. you must be charged under Title 18 (it says so in the very statute you cite.) You will not find a crime of coming into the United States without papers. It's civil law and civil wrongs are NOT crimes. Period. If civil wrongs were crimes, you could be jailed for cheating on your wife. There are two different courts in the U.S. They are civil courts and criminal courts. Immigration is civil.

That was an asinine explanation about how you must be under the jurisdiction in order to be covered. If that were the case, a foreigner could commit murder and leave the U.S. with no consequences.

In Black's Law Dictionary, felonies are described as crimes where the punishment exceeds one year. Blacks' is the dictionary of choice in the legal profession.

When the children of an undocumented foreigner are here, the courts have no authority to deport them and foreign countries are under no obligation to accept children born in the U.S. regardless of the immigration status of the parents.

[Enforcer]

I wanted to add an addendum for those who stumble across this thread and are confused by the superfluous arguments that xenophobes make relative to the immigration laws and the 14th Amendment.

When the 14th Amendment was ratified, the U.S. did not accept American Indians as citizens of the United States. It would not be until 1924 that Indians were considered as citizens.

There is a tremendously great argument that people make about the 14th Amendment, but three things are true:

1) The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified

2) While we can make arguments about original intent, the United States Supreme Court set themselves up as the final arbiters of the law and they practice the "Living Constitution" crap and not even Jesus himself has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court

3) We could ignore the 14th Amendment if we were true constitutionalists; however, if we are purists, then NO non-white within our borders is a citizen. Blacks became citizens, compliments of an illegally ratified amendment.

http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

Blacks having gotten their citizenship via an illegally ratified amendment are in no better position than the children of undocumented foreigners who have been given a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" and birth certificate. This, having gone on for generations, cannot practically be undone. And the 14th Amendment guarantees all PERSONS (as differentiated between citizens) the equal protection of the laws.

IF this case ever went to court, it would be decided on the basis of common law and case law. In no way is the "illegal alien" argument going to fly in the United States Supreme Court. We would be better served to create a Guest Worker program and be done with this issue. It is the Achilles Heel of the Tea Party, Ron Paul, and anyone else that gets sucked into buying the old Ku Klux Klan explanation of citizenship. BTW, I'm not taking sides, but the argument about so - called "illegal immigration" (absent any laws making immigration a crime) were made popular by David Duke and his Border Watch effort in about 1977.