Ron Paul shocker: No more 'anchor babies'

[dawnbt]

Ron Paul shocker: No more 'anchor babies'
GOP gadfly's 'anti-immigrant' ad irks supporters

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 4, 2008
11:15 p.m. Eastern



© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com



Ron Paul
A controversial new anti-illegal-immigration ad by GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul has sent his libertarian supporters into high dudgeon, but it's getting rave reviews from border-security hawks, including some Homeland Security officials.

In a surprise move, the strict constitutionalist has taken aim at the 14th Amendment as part of a proposal to control growing illegal immigration. U.S. Rep. Paul, R-Texas, proposes repealing the provision that gives automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S., even if their parents enter the country illegally.

"Ron Paul wants border security now," his new campaign ad asserts. "Physically secure the border. No amnesty. No welfare to illegal aliens. End birthright citizenship. No more student visas from terrorist nations."

The 30-second TV spot was released last week and is now running in New Hampshire.

"This advertisement makes it clear that, as president, Dr. Paul would oppose amnesty, secure the border, end birthright citizenship, end welfare to illegal aliens, and restore the rule of law," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder from Paul's headquarters in Arlington, Va.

However, many of Paul's supporters – who have donated more than $20 million to his campaign over the past three months alone – are not pleased with the ad. And some have expressed shock at his sudden tough stance against immigration.

Justin Raimondo, editor of AntiWar.com, a blog Paul regularly contributes to, called the ad "disgraceful."

"Rarely has a more ignorant proposal been advanced," he said. "And it is made even worse by the fact that this is Ron Paul we're talking about."

He and other angry fans accused Paul of pandering to the conservative base of the GOP, specifically border-security voters who backed presidential candidate Tom Tancredo before he recently dropped out of the race.

"'No more student visas from terrorist nations' stands against his rhetoric of 'lets talk to people, trade with them, etc.,' as opposed to 'bomb them and interfere with them,'" writes a blogger called "Ali" on Reason.com's blog. "But I think he's trying to appeal to a certain segment of the Republican base. I do not like it though. Otherwise, it is a good ad that has a Tancredo feel to it – despite the fact that I despise Tancredo."

Others agree with Paul's proposals, including Homeland Security officials, who say the U.S. policy of birthright citizenship is a major incentive for illegal immigration.

So-called anchor babies are automatically conferred American citizenship, and are entitled to government welfare benefits regardless of the legal status of their parents – even if a parent is a foreign terrorist. Parents, in turn, can also obtain citizenship for themselves by using the family reunification features of immigration law.

Officials complain that illegal immigrants from Mexico cross the border to use U.S. emergency rooms as "maternity wards," and their babies are delivered as "public charges."

"On the U.S. southern border, aliens drive around U.S. hospitals until their water breaks, and then they drive up to the emergency room door for admission and 'free' maternity care," said one official who works for U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Texas.

A senior DHS official in Washington says birthright citizenship is a vestige of the 1800s and has outlived its original charter and purpose of assimilating former slaves into U.S. society after Emancipation.

"A major pet peeve of mine is the bastardization of the 14th Amendment, the principle of Jus Solis, an act to accommodate slaves," he said. "We now permit anyone having a child born in the United States or under the rules of international boundaries to attain United States citizenship under this principle. It is wrong."

According to the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, more than 570,000 U.S.-born children under the age of 18 have at least one parent born in the Middle East. That number is expected to grow to 950,000 by 2010.

Homeland Security officials also praised Paul for proposing to deny student visas for Muslims from terror-risk countries.

They say college campuses have become hotbeds of radicalization for terror groups, and a number of terrorists and terrorist suspects – including three of the 9/11 hijackers – have entered the U.S. on student visas.

DHS has identified 35 countries of interest for targeting potential terrorist activities, including 34 from predominantly Muslim countries. Here is the internal list, a copy of which was obtained by WND:

Afghanistan
Algeria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Djibouti
Egypt
Eritrea
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Morocco
North Korea
Oman
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tajikistan
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates (UAE)
Uzbekistan
Yemen
Territories of Gaza and the West Bank

h ttp://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59551

[ShowMeLiberty]

No comments section?! I wanted to set them straight how it's only the one line about student visas that bothered some of us.

[thegr8drronpaul]

Yes, exactly! That's the online line that should be omitted, imo

[Carl Corey]

What exactly entitles people the right to study in the US?

I don't think there are many, if any, Americans who go study in Pakistan, Iran, or North Korea, so why allow student visas for nations where the government and or population is downright hostile toward the US?

[arden forester]

High dudgeon sometimes implies just flying off the handle. There is a difference between an automatic right (one with no alternatives) and the right to apply for citizenship. Citizenship is often used to exploit a situation.

In the UK there are all sorts of citizenship rights. For instance, my wife is a Dutch citizen and is allowed to vote in local and European elections but NOT UK national elections, even though the authorities expect her to pay TAX!! So she gets to decide local taxes but not national taxes. The Irish can vote in national UK elections as well as all others, but Americans can vote in no election whatsoever, even if they pay taxes and are residents! Being born in the UK is a matter of luck. If you are British and have a non-British partner (ie unwed) your child is an automatic foreigner!! However, get married and it's OK.

I would have thought that there is nothing unLibertarian about saying that an illegal immigrant should forego "automatic rights" about birth citizenship for children. After all, Arnie Schwarzenegger is now a citizen and Governor of the eight largest economy in the world. But he has NO HOPE AT ALL currently of being President, because he WASN'T born in the USA.

Sticking my neck out here, I'd say I'd prefer a person who has shown a country a certain amount of hard work and contribution, rather than someone who decided to break the rules and then complain about people being nasty!

Surely a Libertarian should stand up for fair play within the rules and see that everyone is afforded similar rights rather than agitating amongst the wrongdoers!

So no shocker there, folks!!

[RPisGr8]

Getting rid of the 14th amendment would be great!

Something wrong with this post.

[arkana]

Hasn't he written legislation saying he won't grant visas from nations deemed to sponsor terrorism unless we find the student to be of no danger to our national security.

It's not as hardcore as everyone's making it out if I'm correct.

[stefans]

they mixed up birthright citizenship and terrorist nations.
some of the grassroots were shocked by terrorist nations, not by ending birthright citizenship.

[iAmerican]

No more 'anchor babies'

+1 !!!!!!!!!!!

[rockwell]

"...the provision that gives automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S., even if their parents enter the country illegally."

Folks, let's be clear here, and for a moment recall the historic reference that frames the so-called "anchor baby" citizenship right.

It was about emancipated slaves becoming citizens, not about whoever can sneak into the country in time to give birth, which is exactly what it's being painted as now.

At no time was this "right" ever meant to be extended to anyone who simply had the luck or misfortune depending on how you care to look at it, of having their mother enter the country ILLEGALLY prior to giving birth.

It's a BS stand if anyone thinks that somehow it was what the framers or the congress that ratified the amendment in 1863 intended, in the same way that say, shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater isn't exercising your first amendment right to free speech.

[thisisgiparti]

I'm glad there's no comment section. You want to sort out the broken border mess and still have an open door immigration policy. Since you haven't managed to oust the crooks in office, then tough titties. They got people mad enough to want to kill us, and you kept re-electing them.

This is not the US in the Emma Lazarus poem. This is post-NAFTA and post-911. Deal.

[JenHarris]

Perfect example why some people on this forum need to learn when to just shut up. The bitching accomplished nothing anyway.

[stephens]

Just noticed something kind of funny. That list shows UAE as a possible terror nation, but if I remember right, isn't Halliburton HQ'd there now?

[Naraku]

I disagree I think they should remake the 14th amendment, not get rid of it altogether. Legal immigrants, for instance, should be able to have their children born here granted citizenship. There should be a stipulation that gives citizenship to those born to legal residents of the United States, even if they aren't citizens.

[ConstitutionGal]

I disagree I think they should remake the 14th amendment, not get rid of it altogether. Legal immigrants, for instance, should be able to have their children born here granted citizenship. There should be a stipulation that gives citizenship to those born to legal residents of the United States, even if they aren't citizens.

I disagree. We don't want every person who happens to be here on a work visa, a student visa or a green-card work permit to have their offspring automatically granted citizenship either. Most countries require that, at least, one parent be a legal CITIZEN before conferring citizenship status on their children and we need to do the same.

[tbarnett17]

No shocker here... hasn't this ALWAYS been Dr. Paul's stance? No big deal, I love the ad! -Tyler

[timosman]

[AuH20]

One of the few times the rest of the world is correct.

[tod evans]

Ron was quite explicit about not hiring more feds to accomplish this...

I'm to lazy to search out the many times he said so...

[angelatc]

I mostly remember this guy