...
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
...
Last edited by terlinguatx; 01-25-2022 at 08:43 PM.
This is, I think, the only specific issue where Dr. Paul and I disagree. That said, neither of us are fans of the 14th Amendment (the court interpretation of which gave us legal certainty for birthright citizenship).
All of us here, I suppose, acknowledge that our current policies don't work well for anyone and support Dr. Paul's aim to address the underlying causes of some of the problems (taxpayer subsidies for illegal or harmful behavior).
My review of the For Liberty documentary:
digg.com/d315eji
(please Digg and post comments on the HuffPost site)
"This political train-wreck Republicans face can largely be traced to Bush’s philosophical metamorphosis from a traditional, non-interventionist conservative to the neoconservatives’ exemplar of a 'War President', and his positioning of the Republicans as the 'War Party'."
Nicholas Sanchez on Bush's legacy, September 30, 2007.
I do not think that anyone that is simply born within our borders should be a citizen. The only new born that gets citizenship should be a child who at least one parent is a citizen. Just think, once all these children of illegals are able to vote, who are the going to vote into power? I'm guessing people that will let more of them in.
"Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." -Murray Rothbard
When I was in Fort Bliss Texas I ran into people in El Paso that ran big midwife houses. Pregnant Mexican nationals would come over and have their babies specifically so they were US citizens and would be eligable for free services.
I call them 'baby bombs'
I'm DjLoTi =) Liveontheisland =) I live on an island =) It's my island =)
Medicaid is a state program (while additionally subsidized by the federal government, which should stop) Let the states decide how they address welfare. Fair enough for anti and pro immigration.
Past SCOTUS has avoided addressing immigration and free movement (as opposed to naturalization) by asserting the Congress has a plenary power over the matter. However, no scholar today would support that assertion. In so much so that the more recent courts have avoided relying on that argument for similar issues. This suggests that if it were challenged directly, the current "constructionist" justices would likely reverse the opinion on plenary powers, however they have no interest in shaking that beehive.
Registration of self for registration's sake is quite contrary to a free society.
Yeah, despite the great rhetoric of the argument, a good proportion of the anchor babies have a parent that is here legally.
While I would oppose your efforts, that's at least the correct action to take to do what is being suggested.
It's a little difficult for this to be correct when Mexicans had essentially free movement into and out of the U.S. up until 1965 (no quotas).
As RP sez: READ THE CONSTITUTION
"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." .
That has concerned me about the slim jim that claims Ron Paul will "end birthright citizenship." That will require a constitutional amendment. An amendment I would support.
Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
All the constitution says is that the congress has the power to create uniform laws of naturalization. It does not say which position is constitutional, so this is an instance where we need to look at certain laws and their consequences. The idea is to end birthright citizenship when neither of the parents are here legally - it is an AMENDMENT, not an abolishment of the birthright citizenship clause. It would stipulate exceptions. I for one think this is a fine idea until the welfare state is done away with. Then, immigration should be fairly unlimited except to catch potential terrorists.
This whole "is it constitutional" $#@! we are throwing around in this thread is ridiculous. Technically, anything written in the constitution is constitutional - the income tax is 'constitutional', by the defintion many seem to be working under (i.e citing the 14th amendment to prove something is constitutional). I could just as easily cite the 16th and say that the income tax is constitutional, when in fact it is directly in violation of original intent. Technically, there could be an amendment that repeals the rest of the constitution and installs a single-party or even single-ruler authoritarian regime, which would technically be "constitutional" under the defintion everyone here seems to be working under.
The point is, with a constitutional amendment clarifying the intent of the 14th, we could end birthright citizenship privilieges for illegal immigrants, which would greatly alleviate the current immigration problem we have, and lessen the burden on the taxpayers who must pay for the upkeep and welfare of these illegals. The point is to sever the link between the welfare state and immigration - and that is Ron Paul's main purpose and goal in the immigration matter, that it is simply an ugly symptom of the welfare state.
Last edited by ThePieSwindler; 10-25-2007 at 01:35 AM.
Think it through, y'all.
If the welfare state is eliminated and a free market is established, immigration will not be the problem that it is today.
The 14th created the US-citizen nexus with the "subject to the jurisdiciton thereof" clause. It makes all people born in the US subjects. Prior to that amendment, people were citizens of the States they were born in. It is the legal basis of all the nasty stuff the gov't agents do to you.
If either of your parents are US citizens, you will be a US Citizen. That is not what the 14th amendment issue is about.
The 14th Amendment used the wide-open language of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...".
This has become an incentive for illegal "visitors" to the US to give birth here (enjoying generous socialized medical care during the process), and then have that child able to enjoy all of the benefits and privileges of a US citizen.
Ron Paul's position is that this is incentive to break the law, stress the system, and unfairly bypass the official immigration process and those who follow the process.
This was an unintended by-product of the 14th Amendment, and like many unintended consequences of laws, needs to be corrected.
Immigration needs to be a controlled process, especially with the current population levels (and the ensuing environmental consequences of over-population). Loopholes need to be fixed, and IMHO, Ron Paul is correct on this issue. We need to change the 14th Amendment.
Every responsible economic analysis of the effects of illegal immigration shows either a neutral or net positive impact on the US economy. Even the studies commissioned by the anti-immigration folks show only a tiny negative impact when taken in the context of the economy as a whole. So the claims about the "welfare state" are absurd and offensive. Most immigrants legal and otherwise come to this country to work, just as immigrants have throughout our history. The claims of immigration fostering a welfare state are a simple fraud.
When the Constitution was ratified there were no "illegal aliens" because immigration was not effectively illegal as it is for huge classes of immigrants today. The first anti-immigration laws were explicitly racist. The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization to aliens who were "free white persons" thus excluding blacks, and Asians. This was reinforced by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, supported by the "No Nothing Party" among others. It doesn't appear to me that the times nor the motivation to stop immigration have changed so much.
Without the 14th Amendment, the 13th Amendment would have been unenforceable and effectively meaningless. The 14th Amendment did not "create" anything new regarding citizenship. Prior to its adoption in 1868 birthright citizenship existed for all except slaves. The 14th Amendment extended birthright citizenship to all regardless of race.
I agree with Dr. Paul. We should defend the Constitution, including and perhaps especially the 14th Amendment.
what does this say about children of permanent residents or legal aliens?
I'm in favor of this system:
1) If you are a citizen and have a baby, that baby is a citizen. If you are not an American citizen, any babies you have will not automatically be considered a citizen.
2) If you spend a certain amount of time in another country, for example 60% of your time in Mexico for twenty years, then you would lose your citizenship. If you spend a certain amount of time in America, for example you live in America for ten years and during that time you have spent 60% of your time there, then you gain or re-gain citizenship, and will get it for your children as well. If one has already been an American citizen but has lost their citizenship, they will get much easier permission to return on a temporary basis.
What do you guys think of this system?
"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."
The phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", was not thrown into the 14th Amendment because it sounded good.
Very interesting article at Wikipedia that asserts that SCOTUS has not ruled definitively with regard to cases of both parents being illegals, and that the interpretation of the phrase is open to legislation by Congress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...on#Citizenship
One would think that lawful presence of the parents would be a bare minimum, with all the haggling being over the status of children of visitors, temporary residents, guest workers, etc.
Congress has been negligent and/or incompetent on this issue.
Grasping at straws here. The Supreme Court has indeed ruled that with only limited exceptions, anyone born in this country is a citizen. The case in question was cited in the link that you provided.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[4])As I suggested before, we should defend the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment. We are still a nation of immigrants even if it drives the nativists and xenophobes crazy.In response to concerns over illegal immigration in the United States (and the associated fear that children of illegal immigrants could serve as "anchor babies"), bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have challenged the conventional interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and have sought to actively and explicitly deny citizenship at birth to U.S.-born children of foreign visitors or illegal aliens. No such bill has ever come close to being enacted; even if one did, it would presumably achieve its intended result only if the Supreme Court, in a new case, were to conclude that Wong Kim Ark had been wrongly decided and that the precedent set in 1898 should be repudiated. Some attempts have also been made to supersede Wong Kim Ark by amending the Constitution itself, but no such amendment has ever been approved by Congress in order to be voted upon by state legislatures.
I think the term "defend the constitution" is misplaced personally. Should we "defend" the document against changes made lawfully by the people (through our representatives)?
What about when we do something that sounds good but has unintended consequences - such as prohibition? In this case, what is the "good" that the amendment achieves that makes it worth keeping around? "Defending the Constitution" is in my opinion a false motivation that supports the status quo regardless of the cost.
I know I am preaching to the choir, but to me its much like the whole why don't you "support the troops" thing. I support and defend the constitution as much as anybody - I however reserve the right to disagree, and even move to change the document via the methods set in the document itself.
While you are not calling 'us' nativists or xenophobes, the idea that examining an issue that I believes impacts the health of our nation makes someone a xenophobe or nativist I find offensive. While the 'net effect' of immigrants IS positive, it is not positive throughout all regions equally. Why is it a negative to look at the reasons why and try to find a solution?
Once again, the issue is debated well long before DJT decided
to wrap the U.S flag around his merrie loud obnoxious self....
Connect With Us