Skip to main content

Recently I have detailed the relationship that Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul of Kentucky and State Senator Russel Pearce of Arizona have with their Neo Nazi, white supremacist supporters.

That is why it was no surprise to me to learn today that Rand Paul told a Russian journalist that he opposes birth citizenship as protected under the 14th Amendment, or, as Russel Pearce calls it "anchor babies".

   We’re the only country I know of that allows people to come in illegally have a baby and then that baby becomes a citizen. And I think that should stop also.

thinkprogress.org

Yeah, that's called the Section 1 of the 14th Amendment

More below the fold.

Now isn't that odd? I point out how Rand Paul and Russell Pearce each have a history of being supported by and palling around with Nazi White Supremacists, and then only one week after Russell Pearce proposes an Arizona law to strip birthright citizenship from citizens of Arizona, Rand Paul comes up with the same idea!

Hmmmm, isn't that convenient?

Anyone recognize this? It is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

findlaw.com

Cause he loves America and the Constitution sooo much, Rand Paul is willing to re-write the Constitution that he loves in order to expel people who are currently US citizens under the much beloved Constitution. The same Constitution which is often ignored and re written in their Conservative daydreams when it suits the political goals of Conservatives who want to disenfranchise American citizens, or strip them of their rights, or torture them.

Yeah, freedom, and stuff.

   No one would be crazy enough to suggest that the US use expensive satellite technology and black helicopters on demand to keep out illegal immigrants. That wouldn't be fiscally conservative, would it? Hell, it would be downright crazy!

Which means it's right up Rand Paul's alley

    I recently have been talking more about satellite observation. They say you can sit in front of the store here and a satellite can read the headline on your newspaper. So I think you could also monitor your border with satellites, and then you just have to have some means of intercepting people who come in illegally. You could have helicopters stations positioned every couple of hundred miles. . .

Rand Paul

   Watch the full interview here . . .

So, Rand Paul has is supported by Nazis and White Supremacists, just like Russell Pearce, and then Rand Paul proposes a policy idea that is EXACTLY like the one Russell Pearce came up with, and they are both inherently race based and Unconstitutional.

  We CAN NOT let this loon into the Senate!

  If you can, give a bit to Jack Conway, Rand Paul's Democratic Opponent for the Senate. If you love the 14th Amendment and the Constitution the way it is you should fight like hell to elect Jack Conway and keep Rand Paul out of the Senate.

Donate to Rand Paul's Senate opponent Jack Conway HERE

Goal Thermometer

Peace and Love to all

    I work for PeanutButterPAC! If you like my articles and want to support Progressive primary and general election candidates like Jack Conway, join PeanutButterPAC, the PAC that fights back!

    Vote for me to get a DFA Netroots Nation scholarship!

    You can follow me on Twitter at @JesseLaGreca

Crossposted at
The Progressive Electorate.com

Originally posted to MinistryOfTruth on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:17 AM PDT.

Poll

How did Rand Paul and Russell Pearce end up with the same UnConstitutional and racist idea?

17%94 votes
11%65 votes
61%337 votes
9%54 votes

| 550 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for the 14th Amendment and the Constitution (255+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GainesT1958, JekyllnHyde, TXdem, laurak, theknife, Cali Scribe, TrueBlueMajority, BigOkie, Shockwave, rightiswrong, eeff, phenry, dsb, Matilda, MarkInSanFran, Pd, niemann, opinionated, BlackSheep1, rhp, MD patriot, Ian S, Aquarius40, BruinKid, dchill, kitebro, Texknight, grannyhelen, Oy the Billybumbler, defluxion10, GreatDane, RebeccaG, barbwires, side pocket, tomjones, eco, Nova Land, Josiah Bartlett, sawgrass727, Julie Gulden, Big Tex, rapala, Dirk McQuigley, Bluesee, marina, greycat, wmc418, klamothe, mjd in florida, sc kitty, PBen, bagman, ccasas, kefauver, basquebob, dewtx, ChemBob, drewfromct, Dobber, reflectionsv37, Viceroy, Pam from Calif, HugoDog, jimreyn, Gordon20024, skralyx, skyounkin, blue jersey mom, paxpdx, wiscmass, sodalis, deepsouthdoug, Snud, terjeanderson, Philpm, Mother Mags, El barragas, esquimaux, BachFan, Clytemnestra, BlueInARedState, tonyahky, smokeymonkey, fou, mystery2me, luckydog, Sam Wise Gingy, StrayCat, Madisonian, Libby Shaw, Doctor Frog, real world chick, armadillo, bleeding heart, Preston S, AndyS In Colorado, rsie, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Hedwig, ipsos, markthshark, Nulwee, Aaa T Tudeattack, john07801, Loudoun County Dem, SouthernFried, ColoTim, wildweasels, terabytes, midagedlib, DWG, sfbob, kingyouth, second gen, Uberbah, millwood, Moderation, NorthlandLiberal, Progressive Chick, cececville, sable, Danali, MKinTN, Mas Gaviota, martydd, condorcet, MikePhoenix, scooter in brooklyn, Brinnon, elwior, brooklynbadboy, Greasy Grant, Calamity Jean, mayim, pamelabrown, happymisanthropy, icebergslim, Jeff Y, mofembot, petulans, o the umanity, CeeusBeeus, ekyprogressive, immigradvocate, jonnie rae, statsone, dreamghost, SciMathGuy, 1BQ, Bule Betawi, multilee, Coach Jay, litoralis, greengemini, Anne Elk, Stranded Wind, more liberal than you, SciVo, cultural worker, Daily Activist, elziax, platypus60, MKSinSA, kevinpdx, CityLightsLover, SheLawyer, 57andFemale, ArthurPoet, sherijr, Nonconformist, mahakali overdrive, Dragon5616, Adept2u, NThenUDie, deviant24x, porchdog1961, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, brentbent, hillgiant, confitesprit, littlezen, marabout40, icemilkcoffee, awesumtenor, alpolitics, estreya, Susan from 29, amk for obama, catwho, teachme2night, Aramis Wyler, Crabby Abbey, Eddie L, snowman3, gulfgal98, sullivanst, Egalitare, DiegoUK, aggie98, NYWheeler, halef, Johnny Q, rja, washunate, Casual Wednesday, dclarke, roystah, cocinero, alamacTHC, CA Berkeley WV, Actbriniel, DupageBlue, sowsearsoup, myadestes, BlueJessamine, We Want Change, BlueHead, trs, thethinveil, trumpeter, marleycat, susanala, txflower, DruidQueen, BarackStarObama, blw, tier1express, Andrew F Cockburn, blackjackal, moonpal, Proleft, grannycarol, ParkRanger, MichaelNY, allergywoman, thepothole, A Runner, TX Dem 50, Canaryinthecoalmine, livingthedream, jacey, LiLaF, GenXangster, ridemybike, nutbutter, wolfie1818, chilonnyc, sow hat, FireBird1, We Won, IndieGuy, toilpress, oldcrow, DarkWater, martinjedlicka

    if Conservatives love it as much as they say they do why do they keep trying to get rid of the parts they don't like?

    Because they aren't patriots at all. Many of them are Hatriots

    I work for PeanutButterPAC, join us and help fight for Progress!

    by MinistryOfTruth on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:16:53 AM PDT

    •  only when it suits them (11+ / 0-)

      if they don't like a part of the constitution, then they will ether try to change it, change the interpretation, or accuse a court of making laws from the bench.

      Selfish.  Nothing more.

      "The only person sure of himself is the man who wishes to leave things as they are, and he dreams of an impossibility" -George M. Wrong.

      by statsone on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:25:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You ask the $64 question, MOM. Why do they hate (9+ / 0-)

      country the profess to love so much?

    •  "Liberty & justice for me and mine, not for you" (14+ / 0-)

      That's the modern GOP mantra. Similar to their old standard "I've got mine, so fuck off".

      "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear..." --Obama, 1/20/09

      by SouthernFried on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:28:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I seriously think they'll take a shot at the (12+ / 0-)

      Nineteenth Amendment next.  

      I've actually seen some crazy far right Republican groups advocate for repealing that amendment because voting is a "privilege" that women have "abused."

      These fuckers won't be happy until we're returned to feudalism.  With them on top.

      My dogs think triciawyse is smart and pretty. They think I'm a strange, frumpy woman wth limitless snacks.

      by martydd on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:32:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I Just Read About This! (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Philpm, gailwax, sable, elwior, DruidQueen

      "The good Dr." Paul is just going to be the gift that keeps on giving. The frightening thing is that I have a feeling citizens of Kentucky will vote for him; I hope they prove me wrong.

      "We're all Hispanic Arizonans now." Keith Olbermann, 5.17.10

      by CityLightsLover on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:39:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is the statement even true? (10+ / 0-)

      So what's the over/under on how many other countries have similar policies on birthright citizenship?

      "We’re the only country I know of that allows people to come in illegally have a baby and then that baby becomes a citizen."

      •  I don't think so. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm pretty sure that France is similar - I'll check.

        C'est l'histoire d'un homme en chute libre, qui se dit, "Jusqu'ici tout va bien...jusqu'ici tout va bien...jusqu'ici tout va bien..."

        by eco on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:00:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  33 other countries (22+ / 0-)

        according to Wikipedia.

        • Antigua and Barbuda

        • Argentina
        • Barbados
        • Belize
        • Bolivia
        • Brazil
        • Canada
        • Chile (children of transient foreigners or of foreign diplomats on assignment in Chile only upon request)
        • Colombia
        • Dominica
        • Dominican Republic
        • Ecuador
        • El Salvador
        • Fiji
        • Grenada
        • Guatemala
        • Guyana
        • Honduras
        • Jamaica
        • Lesotho
        • Malaysia
        • Mexico
        • Nicaragua
        • Pakistan
        • Panama
        • Paraguay
        • Peru
        • Saint Christopher and Nevis
        • Saint Lucia
        • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
        • Trinidad and Tobago
        • United States
        • Uruguay
        • Venezuela

        Nothing is more important than beating the teabaggers. Nothing.

        by phenry on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:09:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ironly ALERT! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, Eddie L, sullivanst
          • Mexico

          -space unintentionally blank-

          by hillgiant on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:34:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So it's basically the policy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean, mayim

          through almost the whole of North and South America. Plus a few random others.

          •  That seems important (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CWalter

            As though it developed from the need to patriate citizens to the New World as eagerly as possible.

            Perhaps the need for that policy, GOING FORWARD (not retroactively), has waned?

            Not a lot of "1st world" countries on that list.

            (I am ready - flame away)

            Obama's good choices (yes he does good things!) don't make me as happy as his bad ones disappoint.

            by mralex1974 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:14:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

              •  I am talking about the US, not Canada (0+ / 0-)

                And Canada is the only one that definitely fits that description, 1st world.  The rest are debateable.

                Obama's good choices (yes he does good things!) don't make me as happy as his bad ones disappoint.

                by mralex1974 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:38:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  ... and Pakistan desperately needs (0+ / 0-)

              more population.

              •  I don't know why the policy exists there (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CWalter

                do you?

                Do you know why most industrialized 1st world countries don't have that policy?  Because they are racist?  

                I'm just asking questions.  If you have the answers, please let's discuss them.

                Obama's good choices (yes he does good things!) don't make me as happy as his bad ones disappoint.

                by mralex1974 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:39:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  History (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mralex1974, mayim

                  It's not racism per se, but history - they have more of it than we do.  Almost all of the jus soli countries are in the Americas because they are new countries, which are made up predominantly of the children of immigrants.  Almost every United States citizen at the time of the nation's establishment was an immigrant within two generations.  There would have been neither a practical way nor a good reason not to extend jus soli to people once they were here, nor would it have been practical to have somebody rule individually on the citizenship of the founding fathers at the time.

                  •  Thanks for this reply (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    CWalter

                    It sounds a bit like what I'm saying above, the new world aspect of it at least.  Seems to me like a sane immigration policy going forward might include this change ONLY GROUPED WITH amnesty for those here now and tough employer and immigration laws (with enforcement against businesses breaking the laws) moving forward.  

                    Somehow we have to address the problem.  It seems like right now we are getting an undocumented underclass that is being exploited as badly as possible.  We've got to change the system somehow.

                    Obama's good choices (yes he does good things!) don't make me as happy as his bad ones disappoint.

                    by mralex1974 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:41:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Although as mentioned elsewhere (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mas Gaviota, mralex1974

                    by another commenter, in the case of the United States, it's in large part because of English Common Law.

                    Up until really quite recently (compared to its long history), Britain had birthright citizenship.

                    That also explains why Pakistan is a jus soli nation - that was the controlling British law at the time Pakistan gained independence.

                    •  Obviously that's part of it. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JeffW

                      That also explains why Pakistan is a jus soli nation - that was the controlling British law at the time Pakistan gained independence.

                      Plus the fact that a lot of Muslims immigrated to Pakistan from India when those two countries were partitioned.  I'm sort of surprised that India doesn't use the same rule, since almost all the Hindus in what became Pakistan migrated to India at the same time.  

                      Renewable energy brings national security.

                      by Calamity Jean on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:37:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually, in some way (0+ / 0-)

                    the countries in the Americas are older than the ones in Europe. Most countries in South and Central America were founded in the 1820s, where a large number of countries in Europe only started to exist in something resembling their current form in the 1870s (Germany, Italy, Balkan states), after World War I (dissolution of Austria-Hungary, Ireland, Finland, Baltic states) or in the 1990s (dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia).

                    France, Spain, Portugal and Switzerland are the only European countries that are roughly the same size and shape now as they were in 1820.

                    The FOX is a common carrier of rabies, a virus that leaves its victims foaming at the mouth and causes paranoia and hallucinations.

                    by Calouste on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:05:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  I'm ok with joining Europe on this policy (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mralex1974, Niphead

              as well as their healthcare policies.

              The purpose of the birthright clause no longer exists, IMO.

              We can bury our heads in the sand or make the hard choices necessary to not bankrupt our country.

              There is no shame for a newborn to be Mexican (insert any nationality) like his parents.

              My son was born in Germany.  He is American, like his parents.

        •  Let me get this straight. McCain can be a (0+ / 0-)

          citizen of Panama but not the US?
          At least in Rand Paul's world.

      •  But notice... (14+ / 0-)

        he said "the only country I know of".  Maybe he just never heard of the other 33 countries phenry lists above.  :-)

        (I'll admit it, I've never heard of a country called Lesotho.)

      •  doesn't matter how many other countries do it (4+ / 0-)

        it's happening here.  i don't care if it's happening somewhere else.  it's happening here and we need to amendment the constitution to prevent it.

        •  Why? n/t (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          esquimaux, martydd, elwior

          "Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodilla." E. Zapata

          by Mas Gaviota on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:33:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Okay... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          martydd, elwior, sullivanst, DruidQueen

          The US is the greatest country on the planet.  Why would we deny the greatness of citizenry to anyone?

          Furthermore, why should the sins of the parent be visited upon the child?

          Finally, this is a nation of immigrants.  Every generation and every flavor of immigrant has had to overcome their fear of the next generation and flavor of immigrant.  

          -space unintentionally blank-

          by hillgiant on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:38:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So anyone who wants to should be able (5+ / 0-)

            to become a citizen?

            No.  There have to be rules to what entitles you to citizenship.  

            The 14th Amendment says what it says and those are the rules now.  It doesn't me we can't or shouldn't discuss what the rules should be.

            The 14th Amendment was ratified in the 1860s.  It was a whole different world then technology and transportation-wise.  I don't like the idea of being on the same side of an issue as Corporatist Moron Rand Paul or neo-Nazis, but there is something fundamentally wrong with the concept of an anchor baby.  Really, how can a 2 month old be a US citizen if neither its parents are citizens or legal residents.  It just doesn't make sense.

            There is nothing wrong for having different rules about babies born here to legal tourists just passing through vs. people living and working here on visas vs. people living and working here as permanent resident aliens vs. people who are US citizens.  We should discuss what the rules for each group should be.

            Give me government-run healthcare over Wall Street-run healthcare anyday...

            by trillian on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:19:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm hesitant to comment (5+ / 0-)

              lest my progressive credentials be revoked, but it seems reasonable to me as we move forward on immigration reform that we should discuss the issue of anchor babies.

              And why would legal tourists necessarily need or want US citizenship if they happen to deliver a child here? If they're tourists they're going home and will want citizenship for their child in her/his true homeland.

              I don't see where Rand Paul is extreme on this particular point.

              Flame away.

              •  Every country grants citizenship in the way it (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mas Gaviota, mralex1974, hillgiant

                sees fit, and a few even allow dual citizenship. This rule for us was devised after the civil war to reverse the Dred Scott decision which said that if an ancestor of a free black person had been a slave, then the free black person might be free but he was not a citizen and had no rights which any white person need respect. The point then was to remove any ambiguity about what made one a citizen, and to overrule Dred Scott. If you think the brawl about natural born citizenship is weird with O and McCain and the birthers now, just wait if this gets in and watch the press chew out the status of grandparents of candidates.

              •  That's a winning issue in the southern states (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CWalter

                It may be something so glaringly terrible to the rest of the country, but it's being talked about here in the south all the time. To think this will hurt Paul in KY is a mistake. The way to turn it is more to say he's messing with the constitution, not the intent. The real conservatives don't like politicians messing with the constitution.

                ''The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be 'What the hell you mean we're out of missiles?'' --Glenn Beck, Jan. 2009

                by dsr2008 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:42:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  My son was born in Germany and is American (0+ / 0-)

                like his parents.

              •  there are no such things as "anchor babies" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mas Gaviota

                "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                --Tom Harkin

                by TrueBlueMajority on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:51:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  There is no such thing as an "anchor baby" (4+ / 0-)

              There's a popular perception that if you have a U.S. citizen baby, you get to stay here.  That was once the case, but it hasn't been for a number of years now.  Minor children are precluded from sponsoring their relatives, too.

              If you're an undocumented immigrant who has a child who was born in the United States and you're apprehended by the immigration authorities, you can be deported the same as any other undocumented immigrant.  You've then got a choice between taking your child back with you to Mexico or wherever (thus effectively deporting a U.S. citizen) or having friends or relatives take care of the child or turning it over to foster care.

              It drives me absolutely NUTS when people talk about "anchor babies."  There are family tragedies that occur every day precisely because no such thing exists.

              •  Perhaps even more of a reason (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CWalter

                to change it?

                Obama's good choices (yes he does good things!) don't make me as happy as his bad ones disappoint.

                by mralex1974 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:02:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  to change what? (0+ / 0-)

                  the canard of "anchor babies" is used to corroborate the need for eliminating the birthright clause.

                  if one believes the birthright clause is something we need to get rid of because of anchor babies, then when one is told that the anchor baby meme is untrue, then the need to change the birthright clause has vanished into thin air since the reason it needed to be changed does not exist.

                  _

                  There is a certain charm in the purity of irrelevance. But the more relevant you get, the more real you have to get. (Barney Frank)

                  by dadanation on Sat May 29, 2010 at 05:31:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No (0+ / 0-)

                    more of a reason to amend the 14th Amendment as part of a comprehensive immigration reform plan that includes an amnesty program for those here, strict laws and enforcement against employers who hire illegals, and a new approach to classifying different groups of people, i.e. those traveling here on tourist visas vs. those here as diplomats, vs. those here illegally, vs. those here on work permit vs. those with permanent alien resident status, etc.

                    We have extremly outdated policies.  The birthright citizenship clause should be examined in light of all of these complex balancing of needs for our country going forward.  Its elmination, paired with other changes, IMO would be a sane immigration policy moving forward.

                    The elimination of the birthright clause without any other changes is, however, not acceptable.

                    Obama's good choices (yes he does good things!) don't make me as happy as his bad ones disappoint.

                    by mralex1974 on Sat May 29, 2010 at 07:50:02 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  and pray tell (0+ / 0-)

                      what do you propose that we use for the determining criteria for citizenship?

                      our policies are outdated?  against what time-frame?  the wong kim ark decision by the scotus was just over 100 years ago. and the deplorable HIV+ travel and immigration BAN that we held onto was not struck from the books until this year.  before we go down this path of "meaningful" immigration reform, we as a nation need to get past out own deeply-held belief that we are allowed to be as xenophbobic as our financial times dictate.

                      then we can get to real reform.

                      you do realize that the issue of anchor babies is false. untrue.  not real.  yet you would suggest that our policies are out-of-date even though you know this meme to be a canard?  this meme upon which so many draw their justification for claiming that we are operating a system that is both antiquated and rife with such abuses like anchor babies.

                      _

                      There is a certain charm in the purity of irrelevance. But the more relevant you get, the more real you have to get. (Barney Frank)

                      by dadanation on Sat May 29, 2010 at 05:19:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Look at it from another perspective: (3+ / 0-)

              So anyone who wants to should be able to become a citizen?

              Yes.

              The ultimate solution to illegal immigration is to remove barriers to immigration.  Even in the current depressed economy, I firmly believe that there is no upper limit on the US to absorb new citizens.

              -space unintentionally blank-

              by hillgiant on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:43:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Are you kidding? (0+ / 0-)

          "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

          by elwior on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:41:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Disproves the 'no other country does it' BS (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean

          That's the point of the comment.

          As to needint to 'prevent it'- Why do you want to punish babies for what their parents are doing? Is that a libertarian thing to do?

        •  birthright clause has been heard by the scotus (0+ / 0-)

          in 1898.

          and they upheld the birthright clause.

          they held that even in the midst of a very xenophobic timer, much like the times and conditions these days.

          only then it was the chinese.
          now it is the mexicans.

          100 years from now it will be???

          we really, love tom target the undocumented and the non-anglo whenever we find our country in hard financial times.

          no reason to change the constitution because we americans tend to be reactionary and xenophobic when it is a situation of convenience or economic hardship...

          _

          There is a certain charm in the purity of irrelevance. But the more relevant you get, the more real you have to get. (Barney Frank)

          by dadanation on Sat May 29, 2010 at 05:28:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  AFAIK (0+ / 0-)

        EVERY country gives citizenship to someone who is born there. That's the basic definition of a citizen - somebody who's BORN there.

        So they're saying that 'born in the USA' isn't enough for them?

    •  At what point did you start to realize... (8+ / 0-)

      ...that everything the right wing loudly declaims to believe is an utter absolute lie?  I can't even be bothered to point out the inconsistencies and hypocrisies in the right wing mindset anymore, because it's simply the very medium of their existence.  It's like trying to tell a fish that it's wet.

      Kill the filibuster!

      by sproingie on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:45:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rand Paul is looking more and more like... (8+ / 0-)

      a nihilist everyday. This guy shouldn't be anywhere near the U.S. Constitution.

      He's a danger to democracy in general.

      The history of the CIA's involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception -- Carl Bernstein

      by markthshark on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:05:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  because they don't like amendments............... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, happymisanthropy

      especially that damned second one.

      oh......................wait!!


      'The great religions are the ships. The poets are the lifeboats. Every sane person I know has jumped overboard.' - Hafiz

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:07:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  maybe he needs is an ear, nose and throat dr... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sable, elwior, happymisanthropy

      to take a look at his vocal chords
      cause he cant keep em quiet.

      (of course, it does work to our benefit)

      ;)

      "Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle." -Helen Keller

      by ridemybike on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:11:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually Russell Pearce did not come up with this (8+ / 0-)

      The idea has been around for a long time. In the first place, most industrialized countries do not grant citizenship by birth. The United Kingdom
      Australia, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, South Korea, all do not grant automatic birthright citizenship.

      There's a bill with about as many cosponsors as the single payer bill that was introduced last year and several years before that in the US House. (I support both so I guess I am symmetrically balanced in some odd way.) Also David Vitter has proposed a similar law in the US Senate although I do not know if it is current.

      Pierce is also not saying we should "strip" citizenship from anybody, that's wrong. He's saying we should stop giving it to the children of two illegal aliens. Current US citizens, even children of two illegal aliens, would NOT be affected under any of these proposals. Get it straight.

      •  Show me (0+ / 0-)

        Every country I can think of gives automatic citizenship to children born there. There might be some exclusions for tourists and diplomats.

      •  The Japanese are so stringent about it... (7+ / 0-)

        ...they will not give citizenship to people of Korean descent born in Japan to parents who were born in Japan. That is, unless they adopt Japanese names.

        Is this really what we want America to wind up as?

        The next OneCare Happy Hour will be TBA
        "How's that 'Drill baby drill-y' thing workin' out for ya?" -- me

        by Pris from LA on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:41:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely right. (10+ / 0-)

        Birthright citizenship is an byproduct of the situation presented by the end of slavery.  How do you define citizenship of former slaves except by birth?  Their parents weren't citizens and they weren't either before the civil war.  The framers of the fourteenth amendment came up with the logical conclusion, anyone born or naturalized her is a citizen.  At the time the US needed all the immigrants it could get with the west opening and industry developing, so the issue of giving away citizenship was non-controversial at the time.

        Let's not let out hatred of Paul distort our analysis of history.  Birthright citizenship is an unintended consequence and while we may disagree with Paul, he is not being irrational or distorting history.  

        •  14th amendment would need to be changed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Norm in Chicago

          There is actually an argument that it wouldn't need to be changed from the Heritage Foundation. But I've looked at this in some detail and I think it is probably bogus. The writers of the 14th knew they were granting citizenship even to the 1860s version of illegal aliens, and Wong Kim Ark upheld that toward the end of the century.

          I would not mind passing legislation as a gesture to change the current system, though. There is such legislation in Congress right now. It would probably be struck down but then you could use the momentum to push for a constitutional amendment.

        •  Bullshit (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          esquimaux, martydd

          Birthright citizenship has been the law of the land since the Eurotrash first set foot on American soil. It was part of English Common Law upon which are entire legal system is based.

          "Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodilla." E. Zapata

          by Mas Gaviota on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:09:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The English no longer have it (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fizziks, Norm in Chicago

            Not automatically anyway.

            •  MEH (0+ / 0-)

              You really do not understand that is makes NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE TO US POLICY WHAT THE FUCK THEY DO IN THE UK.  

              "Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodilla." E. Zapata

              by Mas Gaviota on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:14:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  MEH (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fizziks

                You just cited English policy for support!

                •  No. If you are too (0+ / 0-)

                  fucking stupid to know the difference between English Common Law and the policies of the United Kingdom there is no hope for you. It seems that your only purpose on this blog is to troll with asinine comments.

                  "Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodilla." E. Zapata

                  by Mas Gaviota on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:29:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Othniel has a way of showing up in the vicinity (4+ / 0-)

                    of Republican talking points. But it may be worth responding on the substance here, for the illumination of others, rather than just cussing him out. He's always had the sound of someone, to me, who has a brush with law but not a whole lot more, and some of it derivative, I.E. he read it somewhere,  and one never knows when a good substantive response will have a good effect, on him and others in the same position."YOU F'ing IDIOT is not a substantive response.

                •  English Common Law (4+ / 0-)

                  Is the body of generally accepted law and legal procedure (independent of parliamentary statutes) which existed in England in the 18th century and was brought over by those generations of settlers who came to the North American colonies between 1607 and 1776.  The majority of the Founding Fathers were trained in this tradition, and it was assumed by them as a background when they created the Constitution and began to pass laws.

                  Courts to this day still consult the usages of Common Law as a guide to understanding how American law is meant to work.  Many of our accepted procedures (e.g., trial by jury) are based in Common Law.

                  The particular legal changes made by the UK Parliament since 1776 are of no direct relevance to American law, however.

                  •  All of that is true (0+ / 0-)

                    I was just not talking about legal significance when I replied to Mas Gaviota. Apparently she failed to understand that.

                    I was talking about subjective significance--subjectively, if the British abandoned a policy in the modern era, and you are citing British law in support, the question clearly would arise as to why they abandoned it. I was not trying to argue a court case, I was trying to figure out a good policy.

                    Citing English common law would anyway be rather odd, since although common law did provide for birthright citizenship, it also allowed for slaves who were not citizens.

                    •  Actually not true (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mas Gaviota, Othniel Kenaz

                      English Common Law, even in the 18th century, was generally held to say that slavery was not permitted on English soil.  Insofar as slavery was recognized, it was by virtue of admitting the legitimacy of the law of the slave's original domicile (e.g., a slave domiciled in Virginia, temporarily accompanying his master on a visit to Great Britain). Even so, in 1772 the decision in ex parte Somersett effectively made it impossible to enforce property in slaves on English soil even temporarily.  As a result, many slaves then in Great Britain became free.

                      •  That's true, but (0+ / 0-)

                        slavery was allowed even after that decision in British territories where the economy (or the land owners) demanded it.  It was a bit of we're so pure but don't look behind that curtain.  

                        •  I thought the date Britain cleared away the (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Mas Gaviota, Othniel Kenaz

                          mess as to slaves was 1805. I'm not sure about indentured servants, or serfs, as to date. Even we had indentured servants until the 1840's. The mess the Civil War amendments cleared away was not limited to African slaves.

                          •  There were a series of decisions in British court (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Othniel Kenaz

                            The earliest and I believe the "air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe" decision came before the American revolution and was one of the reasons the south joined the north in the rebellion.  I don't think Britain finally abolished slavery all over the empire until the German sugar beet eliminated the necessity of slaves on sugar plantations, but that might just be my cynicism.

                            The first sugar beet refinery opened in Germany in 1802 but the sugar beet didn't fully conquer the market until the 1850's http://www.microsour.com/...

                            and Britain finally ended slavery in all it's colonies in 1834 with the Act of 1833. http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                      •  That is interesting history (0+ / 0-)

                        That is interesting history. I certainly appreciate the information. Somehow I had always thought of England as a slave society too because many societies back then were. But as you point out, they had a kind of queasiness on letting slavery on their soil.

                        As I think more about it, the question of "citizenship" also seems a little murky back then because there were no voting rights anyway. People were just "subjects." Do you know if being a "subject" was always assigned by birth, even for blacks?

                        I still think with regard to the poster above, though, that it is somewhat odd to be relying on common law when contemporary law in the United States (which would technically be binding if it hadn't been totally overwritten) allowed slavery.

                        •  As I understand it (3+ / 0-)

                          The defining characteristic of citizenship then was not voting rights (which some people did have, but as a consequence of property ownership and other privileges, not simply as citizens) but allegiance; i.e., the reciprocal relationship between the sovereign (i.e., the government, as personified by the King) and the subject.  To the sovereign was owed obedience under the law; the subject was owed the protection by the law of the subject's life, property, and other rights, except as otherwise determined by the law.

                          By the Common Law, at least as interpreted in America, allegiance was determined by being born within the dominions and jurisdiction of the sovereign; and was really an allegiance to any government of that territory, rather than personally to the monarch.  So that (according to this argument), the sovereignty over the colonies was transferred from King George III to the government of the United States of America, the allegiance of the colonists naturally followed along with it.

                          You may find these quotes of interest.

            •  The English have legal problems we don't have. (3+ / 0-)

              They once had something called the British Empire as to which all those bound by it had a right to come to Britain. When that vanished, replaced by Little England, they realized that they had a problem because the colonial subjects who had a right to be in Britain did not like them very much, no matter where they were. And they aren't assimilating in the way immigrants here do. But they are still a beacon location for immigrants trying to do better than at home. A lot of those slip through a lot of Europe in order to get into Britain specifically. Different problems create different solutions. Good or bad.

              What the bar on birth citizenship has created all over Europe is a whole class of permanently resident  non-citizens sometimes generations away from the culture of the homeland, Turks to everyone but real Turks, because while the parents were immigrants and not citizens, the children who never knew the homeland share that restriction, and the grandchildren and so on. A permanent excluded and alien class which is some places is a very large class. Unlike the US, there are deep indigenous cultures going back to Neanderthal times in Europe who are not about to surrender their traditions and distinctiveness or allow a new one to develop in their place (they fought, ahem, wars over that), a problem the US does not have because of its newness and its having drawn from many places from the very beginning. China and Japan have an ethnic version of the same problem. And Ethnic Chinese have had it for centuries when they move to other countries where they are forbidden by law to do X or Y, and became merchants in consequence, the only open option. And remember the exclusionary lines against Jews in Europe in pre WWI times. It may be a European idea but it is not one that works even for them.

              As to a change, Othniel has to suggest a rational alternative and spell out how it would work before pushing the idea. Even a good solution, were there one, is the mother of new problems which must be anticipated before a change is made. The good idea floating in space, assuming one thinks this is a good idea at all, is the mother of thousands of problems, unless you are prepared to live with the Swiss solution of the legislatively proclaimed and enforced never assimilable underclass, until they outnumber you.

              Frankly our problem here if you call it that is that those who propose this think we do have a single culture, that being white, Protestant and Northern European, and this comes from fear that in their lifetimes they will be outnumbered.

              •  Personally I want all kinds (0+ / 0-)

                of different cultures and colors here.  It's be cool though if more of those people could be the ones that come here and get graduate degrees but can't stay afterwards to boost our science and technology expertise.

                As for ideas, how about an amnesty program for those here, strict laws and enforcement against employers hiring illegals, amending the automatic birthrite citizenship clause, adopting sane regulations for each class, perhaps as trillian says above:

                There is nothing wrong for having different rules about babies born here to legal tourists just passing through vs. people living and working here on visas vs. people living and working here as permanent resident aliens vs. people who are US citizens.  We should discuss what the rules for each group should be.

                I'm sure there are other components that need to be considered.  Still, having a sane discussion about these ideas will need to be a part of immigration reform if we want it to be successful.

                Because right now, under our very noses, we have a whole class of under-citizens that are badly exploited and recycled for the next group, not to mention those who never even make it here on the violent trip to and across the border, and that's unacceptable and has to change, no matter how much the next generation might succeed.  If we have to bring in cheap labor from another country, it's got to be regulated somehow, and we can deal with people who are registered in the program having immigration rights and their children having immigration rights, but right now the businesses win and the immigrants are losing big time and change has to be systemic to succeed.

                Obama's good choices (yes he does good things!) don't make me as happy as his bad ones disappoint.

                by mralex1974 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:23:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I agree about Britain having its own issues (0+ / 0-)

                The Pakistanis are a particular problem in British eyes. Not only have the British changed their birthright tradition to deal with increased Muslim immigration, they are also thinking of changing other policies, such as for example allowing the marriage of cousins, which has a British history extending to Queen Victoria and others. But Muslims do it more than they would like, so they may ban it.

                I also agree with your comments on old cultures. Clearly there is a huge correlation between being in the New World and having birthright citizenship. The cultures here are not as old and stagnant, so there is not as much resistance to change. But resistance to change is not my personal motive, and I don't think it's a necessary effect (as opposed to cause) of repealing the birthright. I don't support lessening overall immigration levels.

                I assume what you mean by a "rational alternative" is a fully fledged picture of what our society would look like in, say, a generation if we passed the Birthright Citizenship Act. (If you just mean a bill, that is where I would refer you.) But a full picture is hard to come by. I'd prefer giving all illegal aliens guest worker status and allowing them to remain here with their families, free of any fear of deportation, as long as they have a job. Some do not like the idea of a permanent guest worker program: they are inherently opposed because it does not fit their vision for society. Personally I have no problem because I view our "society" as literally being our citizens and those on the path to citizenship--whether guest workers are inside US borders or in their home country does not change that. But I do agree that much more study is needed of the likely effects. I can look up French and German immigration laws on Wikipedia, but not reading French or German, it is hard to get a reasonably complete picture of how things play out in societies without automatic citizenship by birth.

                •  A rational alternative means not only the matters (0+ / 0-)

                  of form but something that correlates with the way all, not just some of our people actually live, and what in practical and not  just theoretical forms improves that.

                  For example, one should not argue about a 'fact' that undocumented immigrants in fact take jobs for less money that American would take if the cheaper alternative were not there, without serious and widespread proof that  it is true. Or that white families limit their children while others don't when every week we look at the Gosselins on TV and that lady with nineteen children or the one with fourteen. In some middle class bits of subculture the ZPG issue may be a priority, but that is not uniform either. It used to be the fierce argument against all Catholics, when Catholics were less accepted and is currently also used as a Mormon basher.

                  One must also deal with the mixed family, where not all has the same status, and determine, as we have in previous times as evidenced by the current preferences what the priority is of maintaining family unit and how to accomplish that. An enormous number of the limited number of visas now go to those with one sort or another of family reunion related preferences, or the extremely well educated leaving very few for working class workers, the actual problem being addressed in all of these threads and arguments. You cannot as a Mexican worker get visas that do not exist.

                  The use of guest worker programs is to you a way of not committing to the people who do the work if you don't have to, and is to me a sign of widespread areas of work for which domestic employees cannot be found even in this market, which programs and which problems have persisted over a long period without remedy  and because we want those businesses which experience that working class worker shortage.  

                  We also have to deal with decades long waiting lists. Lists which are thrown off when suddenly a new status appears, a certain kind of worker, or a new group of asylum seekers or refugees who go to the top of lists for political reasons, without increasing the number of visas. Or because a well connected Congressman for consideration received is in the business of putting special bills through Congress for specific people or groups, scarfing visas off the total quota for the really well connected.

                  And of course, the AZ situation and its like where while there may be violations, the purpose of their program is to squeeze whole ethnicities out of their homes, lives and societies, citizens or not. But their method is simply to grab people and thrust them, bad case or good, on ICE, which does not have the assets to process those claims, and to punish as criminals all those who have any material association with such persons, such as sheltering one or inviting one into the state without first checking their immigration status or giving one a ride in a car. If they ever budgeted the cost of that series of stupid legislative decisions they would see the cost is astronomical and not likely to decline but they have not done that becasue that would be an admission that reality is as important as their need to make and keep  their state majority white.  This picks up relatives. including documented but not birthright citizen relatives, because each such act is a crime for which a claim can be made that it is a deportable crime. I strongly believe this criminalization occurred for the purpose of making criminals of documented folk otherwise out of range, to get the whole family out of the country on any pretext. That has got to be fixed.

                  We also have to deal with the remainders of past immigration adjustments such as my grandmother who lost her naturalized citizenship after getting it, because she married a Canadian, and did not know that until a crisis on the issue erupted, or my much posted neighbor who didn't discover she was not a citizen until her fifties.

                  Computer research on statutes flatly does not provide the necessary information. Citizenship here has never been the be all and end all of anything other than voting (and there do exist jurisdictions where non citizens can vote in school elections and the like because the test of eligibility is not citizenship but having kids in the school, for one example) except in xenophobic times of which we are currently in one. There have always been many people who live here in irregular status, settle down and make families without disturbance, and without being hunted, as now. This mad emphasis on citizens only, rather than on people, of whatever kind and origin, which may be culturally as well as legally appropriate in other places, has never on the streets been the rule here. Amnesties are both bureaucratic steps to simplify and a reflection of an American value that simply does not distinguish principally on citizenship as many European cultures who do not want the blur of things Americans have and prefer, but their own distinct cultures and languages maintained by their government.

                  It has only been a political problem in this round since the Rs resurrected it very suddenly in the Spring of 2008, and since that time. At that point they were running out of fear issues with which to lure their bases, without impinging on their party preference for big business being the center of those folks' attention. Citizenship makes you safe but until this round, once the McCarthy period ran its course, it was not the sine qua non of participation in society and its benefits, and its absence generally did not expose you the fear of the knock at the door in the middle of the night as it does now.  

                  All of this as a reality must be figured into any alternative plan to the current law, not including AZ. AZ's law as amended is bizarre as it wipes out the Terry 'articulable facts from which a reasonable suspicion of the person committing a crime, has been wiped out, and children whose parents are undocumented and who are born here can't even get a birth certificate under that law, which makes claiming they were not born here when they were, and are deportable rather than full citizens, much much easier.

          •  Not so much... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TrueBlueMajority

            Unless you mean citizenship for landed white males of European ancestry.

            For the other 75% of the population, well it sucked to be them.

            "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly."

            by Niniane on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:19:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It took the British eight hundred awful years (0+ / 0-)

              to get to where they are now, including at least one roaring Civil War of their own. If you start counting from King John and his runins with the Barons who wanted their rights protected.

        •  As much as I hate to agree... (6+ / 0-)

          Whether or not the 14th should be amended to apply to only babies born to parents legally in the US is a valid question, and it's likely that the majority of US citizens would support it. Citizens, legal residents, and those visiting the country legally would all qualify... which is in line with most of the countries bestowing citizenship to those born there. I personally don't know of any other country who gives citizenship to children born to those in their countries illegally. (Please cite your source if you choose to disagree).

          A solid case could be made for both sides, based on the intentions of the framers of the 14th, practices and precedents set in other industrialized and "free" countries, and common sense. If this movement ever gains steam, I will listen to any well reasoned argument, I really don't know how I feel about it at this point.

          Regardless of how any of us feel personally, this alone is not any kind of "proof" of Paul's racism, hatred, and general loony-toony-ness. It's a valid point of view, and may well resonate with the population.

          There are plenty of things that mark Rand Paul as completely unfit for office... but this ain't one of them.

          "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly."

          by Niniane on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:29:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I completely agree (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CWalter, fizziks

            I completely agree with most of what you said here. Repealing the Civil Rights Act? Thats freaking loony. Changing our citizenship policy to match 90% of other industrialized nations? Not so much. In fact I've seen polls that say more support this idea than oppose it.

            That said, there are countries that do have automatic birthright citizenship. Most of the countries in the Western Hemisphere, in fact. But they're not industrialized, except for Canada and the US. Outside the Western Hemisphere it's pretty rare.

            •  Countries that want to encourage immigration? (0+ / 0-)

              Just looking briefly at the list of 33 countries posted earlier, it looks like most are countries that want or need more people.  Canada certainly qualifies, it has lots of room and plenty of work to be done, many Latin American countries fit that profile as well.  The US certainly fit that profile at the time the fourteenth amendment was drafted. It is a valid question if that is still true of the US today.  I think it probably is but recognize that there could be rational disagreement.  

          •  A problem. One of the unspoken factors in birth (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Calamity Jean

            citizenship and more so in the other versions is documentation. While it is now less so, except after July 29 in Arizona, proof of location of birth can be a mess, and many people don't have it. PA only started routinely and automatically issuing certificates in the 1920's and many children were then and some are born now not in hospitals at all, which crank them out (only until July 29 in AZ) for whoever is born there. My late father's birth was registered two years after he was born in early WA state, in a county he and his family did not live in. And during voting disputes, especially in teh South, there are problems especially for the old in producing birth certificates at all for any purpose, although the ancient human being is standing before the officer holder trying to figure out what to do when the families have known one another as neighbors for sixty or eighty years, as far back as memory goes.

            Going over to the other system will only make this worse, because it is no longer then the location birth state of the baby which decides citizenship, something now, save in AZ after July 29, but the legal status of the parents, or perhaps the grandparents or worse, for which there are fewer surviving papers.

            I say this out of deeper than usual experience of how people who think they are citizens and have lived here fifty good years suddenly discover that old Pop or grandpop didn't come here before he was eighteen and get his citizenship thereafter automatically, but after eighteen so he wasn't and was himself mistaken about the law and had never regularized his status, and therefore my friend who did not even know there was an issue, was not either. Had to start from scratch, including leaving the country and formally applying for a visa to reenter her home. It took years.

            There are other holes in the system. My grandmother was a naturalized citizen in 1904 when she married my grandfather. It turned out that under the law of that time, if she married a Canadian, she automatically lost her naturalized citizenship even when she married him in Brooklyn and lived there. And so, when this was discovered in the thirties, she had to start all over again, as well. In the proposed new system, all you need to do is discover something like that, and the most amazing people will find they do not have the right to citizenship and are suddenly subject in this climate not to a regime of fixing the mix, but to immediate deportation without remedy since living here as a non citizen for a long time without papers would either penalize them as to time of return or bar it entirely.

        •  regarding birthrighft citizenship... (0+ / 0-)

          Wong Kim Ark had sued to be re-admitted to the birthplace, after taking a trip to China. He argued that by virtue of his birth on its soil he was a citizen of the United States, even though his parents were racially barred from achieving that status.

          In opposing Wong, the federal government argued in its court briefs, “There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be scarred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage.” The Solicitor General asked, “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution to exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation?” He answered, “If so, then verily there has been a most degenerate departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”

          Rejecting these racial arguments, the Court based its ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision of the Constitution is familiar as the source of “equal protection of the laws.” The Court gave a literal interpretation to its opening lines, that “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.” By doing so, the Supreme Court united racial minority groups. For the Fourteenth Amendment had been passed to overturn the notorious 1857 Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case, which declared that blacks were not citizens. Thus, because African Americans were citizens, Asian immigrants could be citizens as well – and vice versa.

          Abolishing birthright citizenship would ensure inherited privilege: an individual would be bound by the status of their parents

          Today’s debate over birthright citizenship brings the connection full circle. Opponents of birthright citizenship have focused on Latino immigrants. They have said that Mexican women wait until they are about to go into labor, and then cross the border to have American children, supposedly to gain government entitlements. This spectacular racial stereotype is the symbolic sister to the “welfare queen” in the Eighties – the African American single woman who has children solely to obtain public benefits.

          With anxieties about immigration, some demagogues have renewed calls for a racial vision of United States citizenship. They forthright in their claim that this is a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation by heritage. Other writers have tried to pit communities of color against one another, suggesting that African Americans should oppose immigration, and immigrants should oppose affirmative action. Yet African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and everyone else should see through Wong Kim Ark that the citizenship status we enjoy depends on the citizenship of others. Abolishing birthright citizenship would reinforce a caste system and inherited privilege: an individual would be bound by the status of her parents and those whose ancestors arrived earlier would have a stronger claim to the nation.

          source

          i added the emphasis for emphasis
          the scotus ruled on this issue.  in 1898.  paul is wrong.

          _

          There is a certain charm in the purity of irrelevance. But the more relevant you get, the more real you have to get. (Barney Frank)

          by dadanation on Sat May 29, 2010 at 03:50:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  avctually, this bit of xenophonbia (0+ / 0-)

        was heard back in 1898 by the scotus
        who decided to uphold the birthright clause.

        then it was chinese.  now it is mexicans.  who next?  

        that was 1898, now it is 2010. the fact of the matter that by analogy, all one has to do is a a simple "find and replace" to bring 1898 up-to-date with 2010.

        this only further highlights how simple (and by that i do not mean easy) and convenient and at its core how vicious this kind of proposal is.

        old xenophobic ideas never die, they just find new legislative sponsors.

        _

        There is a certain charm in the purity of irrelevance. But the more relevant you get, the more real you have to get. (Barney Frank)

        by dadanation on Sat May 29, 2010 at 05:38:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Given that the document allows (4+ / 0-)

      for itself to be ammended, we can both love it and try to ammend it.

      Kinds like my wife does with me all the time.

      & yes the toilet seat is now down

    •  They also believe in the free market, yet don't (0+ / 0-)

      believe that Americans can compete with immigrants - America needs armed protection from that competition, not a free market.

      Maybe it's just America they don't believe in.

      One nation, indivisible.

      by Doctor Frog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:31:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CWalter

      How is this racist?  Seriously, explain.

      I agree with Rand Paul.  But that's not the most important part.  The important part is that Rand Paul is trying to change the subject from his Civil Rights comments, and you're taking the bait.

      They're trying to start an uproar over something that is far less controversial than opposing the civil rights act, which could help Paul shore up Republican support and put this behind him.  Stupidly, lots of progressives seem to be taking the bait.

      Fact is, lots of folks who take a common sense approach to politics rather than an ideological one agree with Paul on this.  Times have changed a great deal since the 14th Amendment was written, and frankly I don't understand how someone can hop over the border, squeeze out a kid, and the umpire call it safe.

      Furthermore, I agree that in lieu of revising the constitution to nullify the 14th Amendment, we should modify the law so that even natural born children of illegals can be deported along with their parents.  If we can't see fit to alter the 14th Amendment, we can at least deport 'em and let 'em come back when they're 18.  Seriously, if their parents get deported then they should go with their parents!  Pretty simple.

      Stop taking the bait, people.  Keep talking about his opposition to the Civil Rights Bill.  Pound the shit out of it.

    •  Conseratives want the orginal constitution back (0+ / 0-)

      You know, the constitution that says that slaves count as 3/5 of a person...

  •  Thank you for including the Jack Conway (15+ / 0-)

    donation link.  Picking up that seat would be a big win!

    The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five. -Carl Sagan

    by CDH in Brooklyn on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:21:15 AM PDT

  •  Paul doesn't go far enough. (32+ / 0-)

    We need to strip citizenship of anyone who wasn't actually here in 1491.  If you're 600 years old, show me your old utility bills and you can stick around.

  •  It's all about racism.. (24+ / 0-)

    The GOP is trying hard to hide this under the surface. But this stuff can't be hidden! It bubbles up and exposes their blatant bigotry for all to see!

  •  I would be shocked, but honestly... (11+ / 0-)

    this is pretty much par for the course among the teabag crowd. No surprise to see Paul Jr adopt this position.

    It is sort of a shock to see how popular birthright citizenship isn't, especially in places like my neck of the woods (the Ozarks). And it's all about those scary brown people and their "anchor babies".

    "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear..." --Obama, 1/20/09

    by SouthernFried on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:26:15 AM PDT

  •  How far would this paranoid megalomaniac go? (7+ / 0-)

    I hope we never have the opportunity to find out, because I really don't see him as having any moral limits.

    It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves. -- Thomas Paine

    by teachme2night on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:26:24 AM PDT

  •  The apple doesn't fall far from the tree (17+ / 0-)

    Daddy was talking about repealing the 14th amendment in 2006.

    Libertoonians love the Constitution, except for the parts they hate.

    Nothing is more important than beating the teabaggers. Nothing.

    by phenry on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:27:16 AM PDT

    •  that's not fair to libertarians (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trillian, Cali Scribe, Philpm, blackjackal

      Libertarians are intellectually honest enough to directly challenge the Constitution. There are parts they want to change, and that's how our system is supposed to work.

      It's supposed to work by building a coalition that favors amending the Constitution, not by simply ignoring the parts of the Constitution you don't like.

      This is important on a whole range of issues, from the drug war to detainee abuse to use of the military to financial consolidation, where many libertarians can be good partners with us against the monied interests.

      •  It's a lot fairer than they deserve. (5+ / 0-)

        Rand Paul also doesn't like the part of the 14th Amendment that undergirds Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But he's more than happy to simply ignore that part.

        Nothing is more important than beating the teabaggers. Nothing.

        by phenry on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:58:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you linked to an article where Paul specifically (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior

          advocated for amending the 14th amendment.

          How much more direct and open can you get?

          •  ??? (0+ / 0-)

            Do you really not remember when all this was going on? It was only last week.

            Maddow: How about desegregating lunch counters?

            Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion.

            I certainly don't see anything there about repealing the Fourteenth Amendment. I do see a man who doesn't much care for the protections it extends to all citizens of the United States and favors ignoring those protections as they extend to employees and patrons of privately-owned employers and public accommodations.

            It may well be that Paul intends for his current call to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment to extend to the Civil Rights Act as well as birthright citizenship, I don't know. What I don't understand is what your interest is in defending him for it here.

            Nothing is more important than beating the teabaggers. Nothing.

            by phenry on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:17:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  do you allow any room for discussion? (0+ / 0-)

              For different opinions to be heard?

              We disagree with Ron. We disagree with Rand, too. On a lot of issues.

              But just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't talk about them.

              What Rand Paul did in that interview was actually address the issue directly - he talked about property rights and having a philosophical debate. That's much more transparent than most of the GOPers who feign interest in those things but really are only lackeys for the monied interests in the country.

              I just don't follow what the problem is. You linked to an article by Ron, and he wrote explicitly

              Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution.  It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.

              What more do you want? What standard could either Paul meet that would satisfy you? We want the GOP talking about these things openly for two reasons.

              1. Most Americans side with us - when the GOP talks about things like businesses being able to discriminate against black people, that's a hands down political victory for us. The more they blather explicitly, the better for us. It's when they get away with not saying exactly what they mean that we have a problem.
              1. Transparency leads to better decision-making. Let's not beat around the bush. We need the discussion out in the open, on race and on a lot of other challenges, too.
            •  There's a reason the Republicans want him to stop (0+ / 0-)

              talking. This is it.

    •  Or, as Bill Maher says (12+ / 0-)
      "The shit doesn't fall far from the bat"

      I work for PeanutButterPAC, join us and help fight for Progress!

      by MinistryOfTruth on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:58:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The shit doesn't fall far from the bat! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      martydd, MinistryOfTruth

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:49:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  honest libertarians (9+ / 0-)

    Can be quite good for political discussion.

    The Constitution is precisely the level at which we should be talking, from citizenship to due process to warrants to speedy trials to habeas corpus and on and on.

    I'd wager that a solid majority of Americans prefer the 'Democratic' interpretation of the Constitution.

    •  Libertarianism is comprised (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux

      of people with juvenile concepts of reality, no understanding of evolutionary biology, or sociobiology, or the structure of primate societies. They are almost to a person ignorant of the sciences that belie the philosophy they try to propound. They have almost no empathy towards others, but are quick to claim their due from society when it is their turn to suffer. They are selfish and reality-impaired.

      Life isn't a battle between good and evil, it's a battle between signal and noise.

      by ChemBob on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:21:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Life isn't theory, though and that's the problem (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean

        with philosophical debates, especially when the debaters don't take responsibility for the real life consequences of what they propose, as if the problem were like Plato's table floating in space and never really existing. For example in this instance, what is the baby to do when it turns out that the nation his allegedly illegal parents came from won't recognize that baby as a citizen of their nation, so he can't be deported there either. And he is a baby with no place to go at all except 'away from here'. That's real life and anyone who proposes this has to have a really good answer for that.

  •  Rand Paul is a tempest in a teapot. If I were to (27+ / 0-)

    design a trojan horse to bring down the Republican party, it would bear an uncanny resemblance to Rand Paul.

  •  Frankly, I believe RAynd's position is popular (9+ / 0-)

    around the country.

    But this kinda changes the conversation, at least for me...

    Section. 1. 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.

    Lots of folks think that immigrants are living off of welfare and then we get saddled with supporting thier kids.

    I recently have been talking more about satellite observation. They say you can sit in front of the store here and a satellite can read the headline on your newspaper. So I think you could also monitor your border with satellites, and then you just have to have some means of intercepting people who come in illegally. You could have helicopters stations positioned every couple of hundred miles. . .

    This dewd is a sick puppy. Like father...

    Capitalism thrives on raising funds on assets that have no value.

    by A Runner on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:32:16 AM PDT

  •  I hate to say it, but I agree with Paul that (7+ / 0-)

    we should not allow people to become citizens just because their pregnant mother snuck across the border.

    Are there any other countries that allow this?  Why, exactly, should we?

  •  Zero respect for the Constitution and Amendments. (13+ / 0-)

    Funny how right wingnuts think all Amendments to the Constitution are subject to their xenophobic/nativist/ racist whims except for the 2nd Amendment which was apparently given to Moses directly by God as a footnote to the 10 Commandments.

    "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist" --- President Barack Obama, 1-20-2009.

    by tier1express on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:34:34 AM PDT

  •  Much beloved, often... (0+ / 0-)

    ??? Lost part of your sentence, though the message still rings clear.

    :-)

    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if no one believes it.-- Anon.

    by ekyprogressive on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:34:51 AM PDT

  •  Good work, MOT. I pitched a few $ to Mr Conway (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Philpm, elwior, MinistryOfTruth

    last night. Will do so again soon.

  •  apply it selectively (12+ / 0-)

    Then can we deport Michelle Malkin to the Phillipines?  Of course, they're our allies and it may be too cruel to send her there...

    Face it, all of us who aren't Native Americans aren't, uh, native Americans.  We need to reductio ad absurdum this to the Paul family tree.

  •  Option 3 in the poll (0+ / 0-)

    would be contradictory with the likes of Rand Paul.  According to him, there is no racism in this country, so therefore no need for white supremacists.

    Here's a dollar. Go buy yourself some real outrage.

    by Philpm on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:36:32 AM PDT

    •  Actually, he admits there's racism (6+ / 0-)

      but he finds it "abhorrent"...but wouldn't do anything to stop it in the name of Free Enterprise.

      Normal is a setting on a washing machine. -- escapee

      by Cali Scribe on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:54:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think it's the other way around... (4+ / 0-)

      no racism in this country, so therefore no need for white supremacists.

      Whites are supreme, so there's really no such thing as "racism."

      It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves. -- Thomas Paine

      by teachme2night on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:54:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That too n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Here's a dollar. Go buy yourself some real outrage.

        by Philpm on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:06:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ironically Whites in the future may benefit from (9+ / 0-)

        the Civil Rights Act.  If demographic trends continue, at some point this century Whites will become a minority in this country. In certain states this will happen sooner rather than later. The reality is that Whites who face actual discrimination will have the law on their side.

        The fact is that ALL Americans as well as undocumented people and tourists here benefit from the CRA.  The sad problem is that people like Paul have a complete absence of empathy for other people's situation that they are too bigoted and myopic to imagine a scenario where the law benefits them.

        •  There are two possible responses to demographic (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          terrypinder, Calamity Jean

          decline and the fear of becoming an oppressed minority.

          The first is to try desperately to reduce the numbers of the "other" ethnicities or at least reduce the number of citizens of the other ethnicities. This would be the conservative method.

          The second is to make sure that rules are in place that protect the rights of minorities and that it's DAMN HARD to change those rules. Also, to maybe treat the current minorities with respect and equality so that they maybe don't WANT to stuff you into rotting tenements and a permanent underclass status. This would be the progressive method.

          The one saving grace of American politics is that the Libertarian Party invariably makes the Democratic Party look like a highly organized hive mind.

          by jayjaybear on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:49:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you for raising another problem the Right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jayjaybear

            hates about the Fourteenth and would solve by getting rid of it.

            The Repugs these days pound on the rights granted by the Constitution to citizens. Only citizens. The Fourteenth applies intentionally to 'persons', every homo something on the planet. They surely want to get rid fo that, and deleting Fourteen without mentioning that would have that effect.

  •  allow drugs to be imported? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Philpm

    he said that!  I thought drugs from other countries were dangerous?

    And to say to have "term" health insurance would make a big difference.  Sure, an idiot.

    "The only person sure of himself is the man who wishes to leave things as they are, and he dreams of an impossibility" -George M. Wrong.

    by statsone on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:36:52 AM PDT

  •  Then they would come for my mother (23+ / 0-)

    because in the early days before WW1, my grandfather escaped Germany and headed for the USA.

    He changed his name, lost the accent and merged into society.

    Funny, none of us even knew we were part German descent until the late '60's, that's how much of a secret he held, especially during and after WWII.

    But, according to my mother, by today's standards, almost everyone who 'came over' to this country were illegals.

    PS- I know a student who is from Ireland.  Been here five years on a two year visa.  She has no intention of going back and is waiting for reform to allow her to stay.  Not all illegals are from Mexico.

    Growing old is inevitable...Growing up is purely optional

    by grannycarol on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:37:29 AM PDT

  •  The problem isn't with the 14th Amendment (4+ / 0-)

    because of the confusing phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which in fact could easily and logically be interpreted so as to exclude the children whose parents are not citizens or legal permanent residents of the US.

    The problem is that the amendment was ratified in 1868, and for most of that period, the phrase was basically ignored as irrelevant, establishing a huge legal precedent and complex structure of laws and regulations at every level of government that have considered anyone born in US territory to be a US citizen by birth. It is the long-established precedent and body of existing law and jurisprudence that presents the largest problem to changing it in the courts.

    That said, it seems to me that Congress could act to revise existing laws in such a way as to exclude certain people born in US territory by explicitly asserting that, e.g., part of the process of establishing permanent resident status is to declare oneself subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and people who have not so declared themselves remain subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government; as a result, their children born here would not automatically become citizens. If Congress passed such a law, I don't see how the courts could overrule it solely on the grounds of existing precedent (perhaps some other argument could be employed to do so).

    •  Extremely specious argument (4+ / 0-)

      Look Congress can try to pass any bill it wants, but it would likely be declared unconstitutional for a variety of reasons.

      Currently entering the US illegally is not a felony. Even if it were, the language of the 14th Amendment makes this simply an exercise in "feel good" legislation which would do nothing to prevent the practice of "anchor babies."

      From a moral standpoint, punishing a child for the crimes of a parent is UN-American. Since definitionally, these anchor babies are conferred the full rights of U.S. citizenship, I can't see how what you are proposing will ever be legal — unless a new constitutional amendment changes the language of the 14th Amendment.

    •  ? (4+ / 0-)

      It obviously refers to foreign diplomats who have immunity to US laws, and also to Native Americans who, at the time, were viewed strictly as citizens of sovereign nations.

      Any attempt to equate "their parents broke the law" with "they are not subject to the law" is ridiculous and, as Dirk said, specious.

      The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

      by happymisanthropy on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:48:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not only them... (0+ / 0-)

        That is part of it but you really need to look deeper into the case law.

      •  Quite the reverse (4+ / 0-)

        Any attempt to equate "their parents broke the law" with "they are not subject to the law" is ridiculous and, as Dirk said, specious.

        If you believe that people who came into this country without proper documentation should be arrested or deported, then you are in fact admitting that they are subject to the laws of the United States.

      •  What happym says is borne out by the record of (0+ / 0-)

        those who wrote the Fourteenth. They knew even then that foreign diplomats were by immemorial international law and custom not treated as being subject to the jurisdiction and laws of their posting stations. No matter where their feet could be found, they were treated at best as 'near' those feet but not in the US at all. It's in the debate, that discussion. Except for diplomats, everyone bodily in the US is subject to the jurisdiction, i.e. the application to them of laws, of the US, and everyone in a state is subject on the same basis to the jurisdiction of that state. What was being eliminated by the state provision was the possibility that someone who came from the sovereign state of VA could not go to North Carolina and commit a crime and then say that they could not try him for the NC crime because he was not subject to the jurisdiction of NC, only of VA.

        Please please think of the practical application of what you say before you say it.

    •  exactly! (0+ / 0-)

      It is only case law that says that children of illegal residents are citizens.  It had to do with a case of Chinese immigrants that returned to China but their child stayed here for many years.  He then went to China to visit family and was then not allowed re-entry based on his not being a citizen.

      It is ONLY case that that determines what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.  This can easily be clarified by new law.

      I actually am of the opinion that children of illegal OR even legal residents do not become citizens.  I worked in the UK and if my wife and I had a child while over there, it would make sense to me that that child would be a US citizen ALSO residing in the UK.  

      That is what the entire rest of the world does folks.  Don't let the messenger through you all into a tizzy on this one.  There are lots of left-leaning folks that would like a more sane immigration policy based on what the rest of the world does - its our history that has our immigration policy be what it is, but lots of other countries have similar history and cleaned up their immigration policy (Australia for example).

      •  If you really believe (0+ / 0-)

        That our long-settled citizenship policy is "insane", then there are only two choices: our Founding Fathers were nuts, or else there's something wrong with your perspective.

        I don't think it's a hard choice to make.

        •  Please don't bring the drama... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CalliopeIrjaPearl

          First, I didn't say our current policies were insane. I said that there is are more sane policies out there (just look at the rest of the world!).

          I also don't think that our Founding Fathers were all that wise in this regard.  They clearly weren't that great on voting rights.

          What I'm asking people to look at is how our policies actually are codified as law and what case law has created the policies that we have.  We've also tried some experiments with work permits that haven't worked all that well.  But it isn't like we have to start from scratch.  If we just look to other developed nations we will find things to like about those policies - the UK and Australia for example are a few countries that treat same sex couples exactly the same as straight couples for purposes of immigration.  The UK has a high-talent visa as well as an enterpenuers visa.  The US doesn't have anything like that.

          Being a citizen because you were born on this land even though your parents are not US citizens just doesn't make sense to me.  If you become what your parents are, that just makes more sense.

      •  I do believe in that case that they did look at (0+ / 0-)

        the Fourteenth Amendment. When you read that case you will also see them deal with the diplomat exception, when they point out that one of the circumstances that gave the plaintiff there the rights he had, his citizenship, was that while here his parents were not in the service of the Empire of China.

  •  Rand in 2012 as president? (5+ / 0-)

    he didn't say no.  Taking about some Salon article.

    Oh, please make it so.  Rand/ Bachmann 2012

    Oh the joy of watching the 2 making idiots of themselves.

    "The only person sure of himself is the man who wishes to leave things as they are, and he dreams of an impossibility" -George M. Wrong.

    by statsone on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:43:34 AM PDT

  •  Look, it's like this. (10+ / 0-)

    Just assume that whenever he or his corporatist friends refer to "the Constitution" that they mean the Confederated States Constitution, not the United States Constitution, unless specifically pressed to clarify their meaning. Note how the CSA deleted all references to the "general welfare," for example, so no imposing desegregation on private businesses. And the 14th amendment was one of the post-war Reconstruction Amendments, so it's right out.

  •  Thank you for going after the real enemy. (9+ / 0-)

    Two good posts in a row.  Tipped and rec'd.

    Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

    by fou on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:44:24 AM PDT

  •  Bravo & Thanks MOT (7+ / 0-)

    Rand Paul has to be defeated.

    Jack Conway's actblue page

    http://www.actblue.com/...

    Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official... ~Theodore Roosevelt

    by Pam from Calif on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:45:08 AM PDT

  •  jus soli... (11+ / 0-)

    The concept that a person born in a country is automatically considered a citizen is actually used around the world.  If he doesn't know that, he should... and if he does and lied, it tells me that he knows he can't win that argument on any moral or logical grounds.

    Jus Soli @ Wikipedia

  •  Then what are the criteria for citizenship? (16+ / 0-)

    Rand Paul, Russell Pearce, and all of their neo-Nazi friends could only claim American citizenship by virtue of being born here.

    Do these people seriously propose that all persons born in the United States go through the formal naturalization process that legal immigrants must go through, and until then are only probationary Americans with second-class status? If you've repealed Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, there's really no other mechanism by which to become an American citizen. Will it become illegal to give birth in the United States since your baby is by default not a citizen?

    What about so-called "14th Amendment citizens": racist code for blacks whom the racists believe were made citizens by [white] men instead of by God. Do you intend on making the partial repeal of the 14th Amendment retroactive, and stripping citizenship of the descendants of slaves and of people who immigrated after some arbitrary date? You'd better, because otherwise all of those "anchor babies" will still be citizens, and eligible after a fashion to sponsor their mothers for legal residency and a fast track to citizenship.

  •  Rand Paul is "to abolish the 14th..." (0+ / 0-)

    I thought there was a process for that?  Was I wrong?  Ohhhhh the headline is meant to grab attention and then the truth is revealed laaaater.

    So the reality is that he wants to do it but he really can't....okay phew I thought he was just going to make it happen and that was going to be it.

    You probably thought Obama was going to be more progressive because he was black...idiot.

    by mim5677 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:52:06 AM PDT

    •  I sense sarcasm, but I don't get your point? (0+ / 0-)

      Why does Rand Paul want to be a senator? I would think it would be to implement changes
      he thinks would be to his liking, including amending the Constitution.

      One of the ways to amend the US Constitution is for the a new amendment to pass both houses of congress. If he proposes an amendment( say to repeal the 14th), then he would be one more vote in the senate to get it passed.

      •  The point is (0+ / 0-)

        that implying that Rand Paul is going to abolish section one of the 14th amendment is something completely different than wanting to.

        It's just weak  writing and if it was about an issue you didn't like, you would probably make the same point I did.  

        I have an IQ above 60 and know the difference and don't appreciate people lying when they don't have to.

        Is Rand Paul going to abolish section 1 of the 14th amendment? No  This is an action that requires large numbers of people to get done.  

        Does Rand Paul want to abolish section 1 of the 14th amendment? Yes  This is a thought he can have by himself.

        You probably thought Obama was going to be more progressive because he was black...idiot.

        by mim5677 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:50:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Me remember from now on (0+ / 0-)

          only talks to people with IQ of 60.  Once reach 61, suddenly they wise guy.  Me hate!  Me bang head on rock now.  Bang, bang, bang!  Me learn use exclamating thing for show emphasis.  This loud sound made by head hitting rock.  Loud head.  Loud rock.  Me very tired from all this thinking.  Lay down for a bit.

          Nighty night, smart man.

          We are the change we have been waiting for.

          by mellowinman on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:57:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  engaging with people can be tough. (0+ / 0-)

            What you just did would have been funnier if I was making a completely irrelevant point and not just one you don't agree with.  

            You probably thought Obama was going to be more progressive because he was black...idiot.

            by mim5677 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:17:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  So why is rand running (0+ / 0-)

          and what changes does he want to implement?
          What changes can he implement?
          What changes could he implement if there were 50+ like minded senators in office?

          We vote for  people ( at least I do) based on what ideas they have and their world view. I don't agree with Paul's world view. I am sure he does not agree with my world view.

          •  I don't know what his platform is. (0+ / 0-)

            but I do know what he can and can't do and I do know a little about changing constitutional amendments and because of that, the title and implications of the diary need to be called into question.  

            We have to use our brains?  What is the likelyhood that 50 senators in our lifetime or anyother would repeal section 1 of the 14th.  They got rid of it 150 years ago when we had slaves, do you really think the chances of that happening lend any credebility to the title of this diary.  

            The GOP had ultimate power for 6 years under Bush and they didn't even touch abortion.  This is a non-issue for me and I think I am being more than reasonable in my assessment.

            You probably thought Obama was going to be more progressive because he was black...idiot.

            by mim5677 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:01:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gop did not even touch abortion? (0+ / 0-)

              What about the partial birth abortion law passed by congress and sign by Bush in 2003.

              Rand Paul, who says he does not like certain portions of the Civil Rights act of 1964,   and now we find out he does not like the idea of allowing all people who are born in the US being given automatic citizenship....Should not be given the power of a US Senator.

              He may or may not be able to convince other Senators to go along with him, but I prefer not to give him the chance.

              Another way to look at is this:  
              Wouldn't you rather have someone in the position of US Senator who will push for new legislation that we like, who has great new ideas to expand our quality of life and liberties, protect our environment, and plan for our future as a nation.

              Rand Paul will work against our interests, so therefore, I wish Rand Paul well in keeping his current job.

              •  Voting for him (0+ / 0-)

                is a whole lot different than sounding the alarm over something that is highly unlikely, such as getting an amendment to the constitution of the type he is looking at.  

                I also hope he loses but have no interest in exaggerating or over emphasizing his capabilities in order to do so.  

                GOP was in total power and we still have legal abortions, I think that proves my point about that fairly well.  I have no opinion about partial birth abortions.  

                You probably thought Obama was going to be more progressive because he was black...idiot.

                by mim5677 on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 11:01:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Headline matches story (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leevank

      The point is that Rand Paul is proposing legislation which is contrary to the plain language of the XIV Amendment.

      So he is either ignoring the Constitution or wants to change the Constitution (most likely the former). Either way, the title is on point.

      It is not within the powers of the government to help its citizens get into heaven, nor to save them from hell.

      by DanK Is Back on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:43:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Title is not on point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bene Gesserit1

        Not even close.

        Title implies he is going to abolish section 1 of the 14th and he can't do that.  

        We can argue this all day long, but you are still going to be wrong.  

        Is Rand Paul going to abolish section 1 of the 14th?
        No - This is an action that requires help from large numbers of people(AND STATES IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN)

        Does Rand Paul want to abolish section 1 of the 14th?
        Yes - This is a thought he can have by himself.  

        You probably thought Obama was going to be more progressive because he was black...idiot.

        by mim5677 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:53:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It doesn't (0+ / 0-)

        matter if I think you are wrong or not so sorry about that.  The title though does not reflect reality.  It is sensationalism and it is not needed.  Sounds like something FOXNEWS would do and too many people here on the DailyKos are getting too comfortable with doing things the way FOX does.

        You probably thought Obama was going to be more progressive because he was black...idiot.

        by mim5677 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:55:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  And Pearce is at it again out here. In addition (10+ / 0-)

    to SB 1070 and his anti-14th Amendment bills, he's introduced yet another:

    A third bill would require [schools] to record and report to the state the number of illegal immigrant children in their student population, along with an estimation of the costs associated with educating those children. If passed, SB 1097 would compel teachers and administrators to determine the legal status of students and their families, almost certainly discouraging enrollment and parental participation at school.

    He's already turned every law officer into an immigration cop; now it's teachers.

    stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

    by Mother Mags on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:53:32 AM PDT

    •  The crazy and the racist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mother Mags

      Because you know this is aimed at the children of all those sneaky Canadians coming across the border to avail themselves of an American edumacation.

      And the teabaggers would be so much closer to getting their country back if we could just discourage more kids from going to school and more parents from participating in their kids' education.  

      Nice.

      "Walter, I love you, but sooner or later, you're going to have to face the fact you're a goddamn moron."

      by rmasher2 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:09:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  and the crazy keeps coming. . . LOL (5+ / 0-)

    -------
    We can't have nice things can we? Because we have to legislate to the craziest and the dumbest among us.
    ~Jon Stewart 4/13/2010
    Also.

    by Muzikal203 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:56:14 AM PDT

  •  The part after the bold as well; (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terrypinder, Philpm, Pris from LA

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    This would seem to give states back the right to make discriminatory laws against people who were born here as well, as per one of the original intents of the 14th amendment.

    The part that was bolded by the diarist;

    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.

    This is especially with the anchor babies in mind, imo (the fact that wingnuts want it repealed) but they have other things planned for all of us if they're successful in repealing the whole section. Open season on everybody (gays, blacks, Latinos, womens' reproductive rights etc) if they manage to have this article abolished. It would open a state's right's loophole that wingnuts would love to take full advantage of.

    •  Intent not so clear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GenXangster

      While you may be right, I am not so clear about two things:

      First is that, in the diary at least, I didn't see Paul calling for a Constitutional amendment. (I refuse to play any more interviews with him, unless it's Rachel wiping the floor with him.)

      Second, as far as the story goes, if he is calling for a repeal, it is only for the "born/naturalized" sentence. It is possible to alter a section of the Constitution very precisely while leaving everything around it intact. We've done it several times.

      Now, you may be right in that the long-term goal of some of the wingnuts is to remove the anti-discriminatory protections of XIV section 1, but I haven't seen them push for it.

      It is not within the powers of the government to help its citizens get into heaven, nor to save them from hell.

      by DanK Is Back on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:48:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So they want to revise the Constitution? (7+ / 0-)

    Bring it on!

    1.  To abolish corporate personhood
    1.  To establish a Federal Election Financing System and ban all corporate contributions to political and individual limits to be enacted by law.  To allow laws making it a federal offense (money laundering) to donate to a political campaign using money provided for that purpose by any non-profit institution or corporation, and to ban institutional lobbying.
    1.  To establish an Equal Rights Amendment.
    1.  To abolish or reformulate the U.S. Senate
    1.  To end the Electoral College and enact multi-party Democracy

    There is a way to do this which is the State driven Constitutional Convention methodology.  If the far right wishes to have a Constitutional convention to discuss citizenship, I doubt that would go anywhere, because there is not near enough sentiment that abolishing citizenship for millions of people would be the right thing to do.

    So the Paulistas want to change the Constitution?  Really?  They should be careful what they wish for.  But they would never get such revisions through the Congress.  It is an idle threat.  However, if they wish to have a Constitutional Convention of the states, this could go anywhere, and, I would agree, there are lots of areas in which our Constitution desperately needs revision, just not the 14th Amendment.

    It takes 2/3rds of each House, followed by state ratification of 3/4 of the states, to institute a constitutional amendment.  Otherwise, it has to be a Constitutional Convention.

    This is a stupid idea by Rand Paul because if such a Constitutional Convention were ever established (the only way his change would ever have a chance), he is opening the door to all kinds of liberal stuff and I for one would want to make his life after that a living hell.  Also to give the current Supreme Court a huge case of liberal heartburn.

    "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:58:53 AM PDT

    •  He is also opening the wingnut doors (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      The farout right would loooove to have a Constitutional Convention. They would see it as a chance to write all kinds of things into it, such as limiting marriage to fertile couples of the opposite sex, limiting citizenship to persons of European ancestry who have lived here for 3 generations (on both sides, of course), outlawing abortion and divorce, requiring women to be under the control of some man (and taking away their right to vote).

      The list of mischief-making possibilities is endless.

      It is not within the powers of the government to help its citizens get into heaven, nor to save them from hell.

      by DanK Is Back on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:51:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The only reason that I am a citizen (12+ / 0-)
    is because my ancestors were naturalized citizens, and then I was born here.

    And, pretty much, isn't that the story for most people in the U.S.?

    To say that my fate is not tied to your fate is like saying, "Your end of the boat is sinking."--Hugh Downs

    by Dar Nirron on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:00:30 AM PDT

    •  Or in my case, because I am a direct (6+ / 0-)

      beneficiary of the Civil War!

    •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shockwave, Dar Nirron

      Because strictly speaking, most of us are merely naturalized.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Hunter S. Thompson

      by SNFinVA on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:16:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  my ancestors were dragged here (0+ / 0-)

      but your point is still exactly correct.

      black kos tue-fri/ sistahspeak fri/wglb fri/c&j daily!

      by terrypinder on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:42:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's certainly NOT true for most Chinese (0+ / 0-)

      That portion of the Chinese-American community who aren't relatively recent immigrants are almost exclusively the descendants of at least some people who came here illegally, since for a very long time, Chinese couldn't legally immigrate to the United States.

      As a friend of mine whose father was a fairly high-ranking U.S. government official and whose ancestors arrived here several generations ago once said, "They'd better not make it retroactive if they do that, because I know that my ancestors couldn't have legall immigrated to the United States when they got here."

      In addition, our Southwestern border has always been very porous, with people rather freely moving back and forth without much regard for border formalities.  I know a very successful Mexican-American professional in Houston whose grandparents crossed the Rio Grande in a covered wagon without going through immigration formalities, and there are many, many other people like him.

  •  um, some editing needed............... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pris from LA

    Cause he loves America and the Constitution sooo much, Rand Paul is willing to re-write the Constitution that he loves in order to expel people who are currently US citizens under the much beloved, often

      No one would be crazy enough to suggest that the US use expensive satellite technology and black helicopters on demand to keep out illegal immigrants. That wouldn't be fiscally conservative, would it? Hell, it would be downright crazy!


    'The great religions are the ships. The poets are the lifeboats. Every sane person I know has jumped overboard.' - Hafiz

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:01:39 AM PDT

  •  Poll should be: non-US pie shall be eaten. :-) nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DanK Is Back

    It's raining, it's pouring, The BP guys were snoring, Gas bumped their well and it went to hell, And then blew off its mooring...

    by SciMathGuy on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:02:39 AM PDT

  •  He's done. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rogneid, Philpm

    But let's make sure and stick a fork in him, so we can pitch him out of politics.

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton | http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com

    by jbeach on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:03:39 AM PDT

  •  This makes absolutely NO sense. Why would (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shockwave, Philpm, sable, elwior, DruidQueen

    Paul talk about this stuff to any reporter, Russian or not?!  

    Conway already has tons of gold to mine, as long as we keep giving him the funds (hint hint ;) ) and now he hands him the Civil War on a silver platter.  

  •  I full-heartedly support Rand Paul's election (8+ / 0-)

    defeat coming this November.

    "Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle." -Helen Keller

    by ridemybike on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:09:09 AM PDT

  •  They're called anchor babies for a reason. (4+ / 0-)

    An amendment to the 14th requiring that at least one parent be a US citizen (by birth or naturalization), for citizenship by birth, would improve things.

  •  So he's a libertarian on princple (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, JamesEB

    when it comes to the Civil Rights Act. He takes the "As distasteful as what you have to say maybe I will fight for your right to say it." approach. Otherwise stated "As distasteful as the way you run your business is I will fight for your right to run it."

    Which is a stupidly principled stand but at least he's being consistent with libertarian principles.

    But on the issue of immigration then we have to sacrifice our principles for the practical issue of keeping the brown folks out.

    If you're going to be a raving lunatic of a libertarian then be consistently so and say we should have an open borders policy.

    The Great Depression: Now In Color!

    by TheChop on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:11:42 AM PDT

  •  He is an ignorant lier (5+ / 0-)

    We’re the only country I know of that allows people to come in illegally have a baby and then that baby becomes a citizen. And I think that should stop also.

    Most civilized countries in the world give citizenship to babies born on their soil regardless of their parents status.

    Arizona is the meth lab of democracy

    by Iberian on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:12:24 AM PDT

  •  That damned Civil War again! (3+ / 0-)

    You win one little Civil War to end slavery and you Yankees think you own the place

  •  Paul's supposedly strict constitutionalism is (11+ / 0-)

    curious selective, but the guiding thread seems to be a preference for whatever interpretation is hostile to minorities. Prohibition discriminatory business practices is unconstitutional, but seeking to disregard the 14th Amendment--which is as clear and unambiguous as can be--is just fine? Strange.

    The constitutional implications are clear enough that the Supreme Court ruled that children born to Chinese immigrants are automatically citizens--this was in the late 19th century, when Chinese immigrants were not eligible for citizenship. Obviously the clear demands on the 14th Amendment superseded that.

    Sorry, but Paul's deranged views are obviously motivated by racial animosity, whatever he might say about it. Combine that with the fact that he has the active support of white separatist groups like Storm Front, and you've got a very disturbing candidate.

    -9.00, -7.69 "Tyrants and torturers will never manage to hide their comic stumbles behind their cosmic acrobatics."--Vladimir Nabokov

    by JamesEB on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:14:56 AM PDT

  •  the 14th amendment did NOT create that right (9+ / 0-)

    It was implicit all along; the 14th amendment was aimed at those who had been excluded from citizenship by the Constitution, namely slaves. Any other person born in the United States was always considered a citizen, going back even before the actual founding of the United States.

    The idea that you can repeal this by modifying the Constitution is, well, insane.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:17:22 AM PDT

  •  "is willing to re-write the Constitution " you've (5+ / 0-)

    misrepresented his position. He did not say he wanted to remove the citizenship of any American.
    He said he wants to change the provision that guarantees that anyone born here is a citizen. There's no good reason that a state has to give citizenship to anyone born there. Switzerland, for example does not.  Here on the border, middle-class Mexicans cross to give birth, just so their kids will have citizenship. "I just want them to have the choice". I know people who've done this. Do you think we should have totally unrestricted immigration? California was wonderful when I was a kid; the population has more than doubled (in 60years) and now its' not so wonderful. If the U.S. had 1billion people, how would it be. There has to be a limit somewhere.

    Even if you don't like someone's politics, you need to  be accurate. And where would you like the population of the U.S. to go? And how will you effect that?

    "It's called the American Dream, 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it" Mr. Geo. Carlin

    by Mark B on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:24:27 AM PDT

    •  well said....and (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Decih, Bob B

      as i've suggested in a post below, most folks would change their mind on this issue of they had to live in the midst of (and pay the cost of) this problem

      •  Most people already do "live in the midst of and (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mas Gaviota

        pay the cost of' what you said. And have no problem with it, since people are people, and what you want in neighbors is decency and responsibility, not just 'the right' paperwork.

        I used to live in a town where there were fifty five languages in which ballots had to be offered, and translation provided for public meetings. I now live in a place where there are two mandatory languages for public meetings, translator provided and a number of others spoken where the patois mix is commonly used. In neither place was the standard what language in addition to English was spoken, but were the folk there with you in the grocery decent folk, acting sensibly, putting out their garbage, not getting police called to the building from their conduct, workers showing up for jobs regularly and on time, taxes paid, and their household and children well cared for. Many a person in both places found ways to help out when one of these decent folk landed in some sort of immigration related trouble, to keep them in the community, which values them.

        I think the problem here is integration encountered, being rephrased as immigration because the ones newly encountered were once elsewhere.

    •  Changing the wording of an amendment IS rewriting (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shockwave, happymisanthropy, JamesEB

      or amending the constitution. MoT said Paul wants to change the Constitution.  Using Switzerland as an example is like comparing apples and oranges. The Swiss have a completely different form of government and different laws than we have.

      As an earlier commenter noted, changing the wording of the 14th Amendment would actually affect the citizenship of all Americans.

      Paul is a hypocrite and a liar. He claims the government is taking away our "freedoms" but he is actually proposing stripping each of us of our citizenship. I guess he is trying to destroy the Constitution in order to "save it."

  •  On the Constitution and Electrical Fences (3+ / 0-)

    McConnell may have cloistered Rand Paul from the national media, but he couldn’t stop him from speaking to the Russians:

    From TPM today:

    Paul recently suggested to a Russian TV station that the U.S. should abandon its policy of granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants -- even if they're born on U.S. soil.

    Paul also said he's discussed instituting an "underground electrical fence" on the border to keep out unwanted elements, though he emphasized that he's "not opposed to letting people come in and work and labor in our country."

    http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo...

    The news: whether you like it or not. -- James Poniewozik

    by RhodaA on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:25:11 AM PDT

  •  The Thirteenth Amendment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, JamesEB

    is a troubling and probably illegal restriction on free enterprise.

  •  Think Dems gonna get'EM a KY Senate Seat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NearlyNormal, happymisanthropy

    Ya Think?

    Or are the majority of Kentuckians as screwed up as Rand Paul?

    Pleeez do not answer that question. I know what the answer might B. (this x-Hoosier knows too much about them parts)(Indiana is no better).

    (Evan Bayh go f-ck yourself)(Corporatist hack)

    ObamaNation 2009! We Did It! ---- Elected > Rebecca Kaplan - Oakland City Council-At Large Seat -----2010 Oakland Mayor & CA-Governor - Undecided

    by AustinSF on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:27:12 AM PDT

  •  Rand hates brown people more than he loves... (7+ / 0-)

    ...the US Constitution.

    Keep it classy, tea baggers.

    What would Lincoln do?

    by stevedubya on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:29:05 AM PDT

  •  Forced Birthright Citizenship (10+ / 0-)

    Here is a true story about the other side of the coin.  A friend of mine who has lived in Australia all of her life wanted to go on a trip to Hawaii.  She went to the US embassy to get a tourist visa.  On the application it asked where she was born.  She filled in Los Angeles because she was born there while her Australian parents were at University.  The Emabssy replied that she could not have a visa because THEY considered her a citizen of the United States.  The only way she could go on the trip is if she got a US passport.  She then applied for and got a US passport and is now a dual citizen.  Some people have to be US citizens if they like it or not.

    "Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodilla." E. Zapata

    by Mas Gaviota on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:29:49 AM PDT

    •  Here's another one for ya (6+ / 0-)

      We met a family in the Dominican Republic while on vacation.  The family was from the U.S. and were born here.  

      Years ago, they lived in the Dominican Republic and one of their kids was born there. As a result, she held dual U.S.-Dominican citizenship.  Eventually they moved back to the U.S.  What made it a bitch was that every time they went to the Dominican Republic on vacation while the one kid was a minor, they had to get permission from Dominican Immigration because the Dominican government considered the kid a Dominican national.

      "Patriotism is no more about signs or pins than religion is about reminding others how pious we think we are." -- Bob Schieffer

      by sable on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:40:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So you said 'often frequently'? (0+ / 0-)

    Cause he loves America and the Constitution sooo much, Rand Paul is willing to re-write the Constitution that he loves in order to expel people who are currently US citizens under the much beloved, often

    You tease. Finish your sentence!

    -fred

  •  Rand Paul -- The Gift That Just Keeps on Giving (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sable, elwior, happymisanthropy, JamesEB

    I can hardly wait to see what comes out of the guy's mouth next. I'm betting he gets around to secessionist rights before too long.

  •  Equal protection applies to illegals too. (8+ / 0-)

    "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    This was placed in the 14th amendment to directly overrule the Dredd Scott decision whcih held that slaves were not persons under the law.

  •  It should also be pointed out that although Paul (9+ / 0-)

    claims that the US is the only country he knows of that adopts a jus soli (birthright) criterion for citizenship, he's again misinformed. Unless Canada, pretty much all of South and Central America, Pakistan, and numerous others don't count. France, Germany, the UK, etc. have adopted modified versions of birthright citizenship, but the difference is that in many cases this marks a progression from the bloodright citizenship standards that held in many older countries.

    In some ways it's one of the Constitution's big innovations, and you can find plenty of arguments maintaining that it's what has made assimilation much easier in the US than it has traditionally been elsewhere.

    -9.00, -7.69 "Tyrants and torturers will never manage to hide their comic stumbles behind their cosmic acrobatics."--Vladimir Nabokov

    by JamesEB on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:40:03 AM PDT

    •  And there's a reason for the difference (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lirtydies, JamesEB

      Most of the European countries traditionally defined nationality as a matter of ethnicity.  Those countries that didn't (and in some cases still don't) grant birthright citizenship were generally ones that defined citizenship pretty much coterminously with the dominant nationality group.

      The United States, on the other hand, has always been composed of people from different ethnic backgrounds.  Defining citizenship in terms of blood would be terribly divisive here.  Traditionally, albeit imperfectly, our nationality has been one of an idea, embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

      I really think that much of this push to abolish birthright citizenship is coming from people who feel very threatened by the fact that within the lifetime of many people now alive, non-Hispanic whites will no longer be in a majority in this country.  I'm a non-Hispanic white, but I must admit that I don't feel threatened by that at all.  I live in a very multi-ethnic area of the Baltimore metropolitan area, and when I visit a local Korean-owned supermarket (where I'm definitely in a minority among the patrons and customers), I love the mix of people of every conceivable ethnicity -- from people who look like me and love its produce department, to East Asians, South Asians, Africans, African-Americans, Latinos, and people from the Middle East.  The atmosphere there is far more vibrant and alive than if the customers overwhelmingly looked like me.

  •  So Much For Repugs Protecting The Constitution (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shockwave

    Obviously protecting the const. for repugs is about only the parts that they like and the other parts they hate don't matter.  So repugs don't really care about the const. because they use the parts they hate to justify their craziness.  I think we know who are the real obstructionists when it comes to the constitution.

  •  Why don't we call this candidate by his full name (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shockwave

    presumably given by his father and mother?

    Ayn Rand Paul

    Torture is Wrong! We live near W so you don't have to. Send love.

    by tom 47 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:41:31 AM PDT

  •  Rand Paul is useless (7+ / 0-)

    I can't imagine any decent, thinking person voting for him and setting back civil rights and constitutional rights.   As a country, we can't afford to regress.

  •  He's probably cool with demolishing (6+ / 0-)

    The Statue of Liberty and that "Give us your tired, your hungry, your poor, huddled masses, yearning to be free" part that's such a pain in the ass for him.

    And since he's against immigration he must obviously be Native American, right? I mean, if he's claiming some divine birthright, he'd be just another fucked-up, Republican hypocrite, if he wasn't, right?

    Oh yeah . . . Never mind.

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:44:14 AM PDT

  •  Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (0+ / 0-)

    "God is an iron" -Spider Robinson

    by oldcrow on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:45:17 AM PDT

    •  cont (0+ / 0-)

      has rankled the republicans since the early 20th century, and 'conservative' SCOTUS justices have been trying to trim it down, especially the "equal protection" clause. I worry about the Roberts/Bush/ Cheney court trying to neuter it, they have tried before.

      "God is an iron" -Spider Robinson

      by oldcrow on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:48:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It was 1982 and Plyler v. Doe when the (0+ / 0-)

        conservative SCOTUS held that the State of Texas COULD NOT exclude undocumented children from its school system, because under the Fourteenth Amendment they were 'people' and that under the amendment as people they had to have equal protection of the law which include equal access to essential public institutions. Timaeus found this case.

  •  More Paranoia... Hyperbole... Weak (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    roguetrader2000, mim5677, Redruin

    with all due respect, Paul is a CANDIDATE for office... he is NOT in office.

    senate "democrats" just agreed to $60 BILLION more spending for our racist, corporate wars.

    let me know when you're ready to talk about the rather large problem we have with "democrats" ALREADY IN OFFICE.

    "Hate Arizona's new law? Ask Washington to do it's job". Ross Douthat

    by Superpole on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:45:55 AM PDT

  •  Born in East LA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bulldawg, esquimaux

    Barbara Lee and Howard Dean Speak for me! -9.25 -9.18

    by laurak on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:46:45 AM PDT

  •  What do you wanna bet... (0+ / 0-)

    ... that the cowardly Congress and the cowardly White House are probably considering changing that law?  You think this is a ridiculous comment? Well, aren't they currently 'reviewing' the Miranda rights law?  

  •  Read headlines from space, huh? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, La Gitane

    I think along with reading up on the constitution, Rand should also learn something about optics.

  •  What's wrong with rewriting the Constitution? (3+ / 0-)

    While I don't believe Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is in need of rewrting, other parts are.  Nothing wrong with wanting to amend the COnstitution, it's in the Constitution.  Rand Paul by himself, by the way, is completely unable to abolish anything in the document.

    If Rand Paul wants to eliminate this section, that's great, let's have the debate.  That's what election are for.  I am sure it will play out well for him.

    Let's also debate other sections that could be rewritten. How about eliminating the Senate that Rand Paul aspires to join?

  •  If we don't have birthright citizenship (8+ / 0-)

    then we'll have to PICK AND CHOOSE which people born here get citizenship.  

    Why stop with excluding infants whose parents are undocumented?  You could go right ahead and exclude those whose parents are ANYTHING "undesirable".   That could be the wrong color, or wrong sexual orientation, or hell, why not go all the way and exclude children of Democrats?  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:07:10 AM PDT

    •  That is the (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WIds, lirtydies, lgmcp

      exact argument that a Republican former Facebook friend made.  When my NYC born wife, who's parents are naturalized Italian immigrants objected to this, he got all snotty and took offense to her taking offence (Typical Rethug tactic.).

      QUICK! HIDE GRANDMA! T3H DETH SKWADS IZ COMINGZ!!!1

      by Bulldawg on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:35:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're serious? He openly advocated (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bulldawg, tonyahky

        that the government should get to decide which families are "desirable" enough to grant birthright to their offspring?  Was he sticking to immigration status, or did he want to exclude other categories of undesirables as well?  

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:38:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Immigration status. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lirtydies, lgmcp

          And the funny thing is, he's of Irish decent, red hair and all.  He's obviously ignorant of THAT history.

          QUICK! HIDE GRANDMA! T3H DETH SKWADS IZ COMINGZ!!!1

          by Bulldawg on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:48:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Many Irish Immigrants in pre-Civil War (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lirtydies, Bulldawg

            days were slave overseers down south. And many plantation owners were of Scots-Irish descent.

            I am of Irish descent. Thankfully, they came to Massachusetts to work in a slaughter house killing pigs and in factories cutting rubber and making shoes. In later years, they gave up honest work and became lawyers, teachers, priests and nuns.

            If you are older than 55, never take a sleeping pill and a laxative at the same time!

            by fredlonsdale on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:34:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Clearances had that side effect, when a huge (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bulldawg, fredlonsdale

              number of persons were involuntarily expatriated from Britain in the late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries. One injustice can beget others. That's why one tries to break the chain of such things, but the Brits then did not care until they discovered they had exported so many workers that work at home could not get done, but the ones expatriated were not coming back so they could risk going through the whole thing again. Hmmm.

    •  Nor have they given thought the first to the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      simple cost of what they suggest, they who love PAYGO but only in Dem administrations. A single immigration case can be hugely complex and last for years, and very expensive, and this puts every last person here, and every baby, into that process, and makes the process mandatory for every last baby.

      Anything at all that demands somebody review and evaluate documentation creates a horrible risk of inconsistent decisions, i.e.the cop on this corner thought it looked OK but not the cop on that one encountered five minutes later, and the school, but not the drivers' license people in my state who have been known to reject passports. And then you have an institutionalized right royal mess which cannot be prevented from happening over and over again to the same individual.

      There is a great deal to be said for a simple and easy to understand and cheap to administer citizenship test for a large and recurring part of a population, i.e. born here and it's a done deal. Particulary in an age of race, that is also a race blind means of figuring out the question for all new additions by birth to a population.

  •  Rand is right here and it's a trap to disagree (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    condorcet, Norm in Chicago, yellow cosmic seed
    Hidden by:
    Bulldawg

    Congratulations, in the many years that I have scanned this board I have always resisted the temptation to post but this thread compels me. Rand Paul's position on this issue is correct, and to disagree with him and try and paint this view as racist or oppressive is basically falling into a trap.

    I think we can all agree that as a goal, we don't want illegal immigration. That's not to say we don't want immigration, we just want a safe and legal path for people of different nationalities to come to our country and pursue their dreams. So to be clear it doesn't mean that you are racist or oppressive if you oppose illegal immigration, in fact there a variety of humane reasons to oppose it. Illegal immigrants tend to become second class citizens who are susceptible to abuse and neglect because their illegal status often blocks them from standard recourse such as police or courts. They are also taken advantage of economically through low wages and denied real health care because of their status.

    Conservatives are counting on a compassionate progressive response, condemning the reformation of the 14th amendment but the truth is that they are right. We shouldn't grant citizenship to anyone born here of illegal parents. It's not fair to the families as the parents could be deported at some point and it stands as a bad incentive for people from all over the world to try and sneak into our country illegally. In fact, this and employment are probably the biggest engines of illegal immigration, (not including drug trafficking).

    Fortunately there is a solution, and a practical one that could be agreed upon by rational minds from both sides of the isle. Expand immigration and include some type of extended visa that functions as a probationary citizen status. Let people live and work here, pursue their dreams and after a certain amount of time where they have no major criminal infractions and have worked for a significant amount of years then fast track their application for naturalization. This is the better stand to take, the real racists on the far right hate this solution which is why they shot down Bush's "guest worker" proposal. This is the better battle for progressives to have because it will more openly expose the true racism fueling anti immigration on the right. Don't fall into the trap of crying racism on an issue that isn't.

    •  Not only is he wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bulldawg

      but the section we should rewrite is the requirement that you must be a naturally born US citizen to be President.  Any US citizen should be eligible for the job.

      I am not feeling trapped at all.

    •  The real trap (14+ / 0-)

      The real trap is suckering 'well-meaning' people like you into taking away a fundamental, easily comprehended constitutional definition and replacing it by a blizzard of exceptions and footnotes and litigable procedures.

      Our definition of natural born citizenship has worked well for over 200 years.  We don't need to change it now, for some trivial political reason.

      You might want to think about how your own prejudices led you to fall into this trap.

      •  on being "well-meaning" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        condorcet

        first of all, my credentials
        I currently run a community center and have worked for social justice in this community for 10 years. Beyond that, I sit on the board of another non profit and just for fun I created a non profit that helps promote music,(I am a recovering musician). My father worked at a children's home and then a detention center and my mother was a teacher. As a family we took in over 30 foster children over a 10 year period. I only bring this up to illustrate that I am more than just "well meaning". I fight for social justice every day, and I have literally put my money where my mouth is turning down much higher paying work in the private sector on the belief that I can be a change agent and leave this place better than I found it. I am proud to be a secular humanist and I never stopped using the word liberal just because the right made it villainous.

        So please don't patronize me with silly claims of prejudice and naivete. We have a problem with immigration, particularly from the south. That's fact. This wouldn't be some tricky fix to the constitution, in fact it's pretty simple. At least one of your parents has to be a verifiable citizen in order for you to attain citizenship. Otherwise you run into situations where families can be torn apart. We don't want any person to be here in any illegal manner.... it's a horrible way to live constantly looking over your shoulder and without a voice. By expanding immigration and offering extended visas as a path to naturalization we can make sure that no one has to stand for injustice out of fear of being deported. As for the guest worker program, I agree that there is some danger that people would be used without ever attaining citizenship which is why that is the fight you should be gearing up for.

        •  We bring in a million people a year under the (0+ / 0-)

          current system, a vast number of them as relatives of those already here, and many who support this immigration lockdown think that is many too many. And in parts of the West the Guest WOrker program and the contractors it generates are an integral part of the abuse of agricultural and other workers, where the employer pays a certain number of dollars and the contractors passes only a portion of that onto workers and provides substandard condictions and a regular regime of blackmail of various sorts or he will make sure they are deported and can never ever come back, and then, in some cases abandons them where they are when the money runs out. "Guest Worker'is not a good system.

    •  I think he's wrong, and furthermore, you can say (9+ / 0-)

      that nobody wants illegal immigration, but if you're born here, you're not 'illegal,' you're a citizen. Period. Apart from naturalization processes, the Constitution is very clear on this matter: anyone who was a citizen at the time of ratification, and anyone born in the US--regardless of their parent's citizenship process--is legally a natural-born citizen.

      This was a remarkably progressive principle at the time, especially considering that most countries employed inherently racialist bloodright citizenship standards, rather than a birthright principle. The evolution of the Constitution, the general course of the Amendments that have been added from its adoption, have been progressive. I don'r see ANY value in abandoning that course in favor of a regressive one.

      -9.00, -7.69 "Tyrants and torturers will never manage to hide their comic stumbles behind their cosmic acrobatics."--Vladimir Nabokov

      by JamesEB on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:29:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, (9+ / 0-)

      My wife, who was born in NYC to naturalized Italian immigrants has no right to citizenship?  FUCK YOU!

      QUICK! HIDE GRANDMA! T3H DETH SKWADS IZ COMINGZ!!!1

      by Bulldawg on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:32:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where did he say that? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        condorcet, CalliopeIrjaPearl

        Where did he say your wife had no right to citizenship.

        If her parents are naturalized American citizens, then she's a citizen.  There's no argument about that.

        Or were your wife's parents illegals?  If they broke our laws entering the country, why should they expect the law to respect them?

        I would also like to add, that if I and my wife moved to Italy and had a baby without first becomming Italian citizens, our child would not be an Italian citizen, but an American citizen.

        So I have to ask, why should your wife's parents expect the US to allow something that Italy does not?

    •  Help me, I'm trapped!!! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WIds, Bulldawg, kefauver, JamesEB

      I disagreed with Rand Paul.

      Can't breathe...must continue typi...

      "Tea Bagger politics is a politics of simplistic and hostile assertion"...Dr. Robert Letcher

      by Giles Goat Boy on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:36:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you want to control (5+ / 0-)

      illegal immigration, then crack down on illegal employment.  Period.  This whole "anchor baby" bullshit is just another racist strawman argument.  "anchor babies" aka Natural Born Citizens, do not in any way harm this nation.  AT ALL.

      ...and it stands as a bad incentive for people from all over the world to try and sneak into our country illegally.

      Bullshit.  These are people we're talking about.  You make them sound like scheming pod-people aliens that are invading to suck out our brains.

      People come to this country because they want a better life, and they want to be an American.  We should welcome this - hell, most days these days I don't want to be an American.  We have always had an open-door policy; it's what we were built on.  Now that you're "in", you want to slam the door in everyone else's face.

      Fuck that.  If you want to live behind a wall then go to China.  I want to live in the good ol' USA - the way the Constitution intended it to be.

      "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

      by La Gitane on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:02:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your comment is brave and wrong. (5+ / 0-)

      Hispanics would have already become a permanent underclass if it were not for the 14th Amendment.

      If they repeal the 14th Amendment America will be flooded with "guest workers" from all over the 3rd world. These "guest workers" will live here and have families here just like the rest of us but they won't ever be citizens and they won't have the right to organize. Labor will become cheaper and cheaper. There will be the citizen Americans and the others.

      Repealing the 14 Amendment is the path to American apartheid.

      We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

      by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:42:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Blah, Blah, Blah. (0+ / 0-)

      If you're born in the US, you're a citizen.

      Not voting gets Republicans elected. Gloating about it on DKOS isn't helpful either.

      by kefauver on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:02:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, but he (and you) couldn't be more wrong! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      condorcet, Calamity Jean

      The very LAST thing we should do is to create a permanent underclass of people who were born here, have lived here their entire lives, but who are nevertheless deprived of citizenship rights.

      Those people will DEFINITELY be subject to exploitation, and thus to undercutting the wages of American workers, and they'll also have no loyalty to this country.  In fact, they're likely to have considerable (and in my view, entirely understandable) antipathy to a country in which they have lived their entire lives, but which nevertheless rejects them.

    •  The system in yoru last paragraph is very like (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lazybum

      the current allegedly nonworking system. And you are wrong if you think that 'everyone would agree' that all illegal immigration is wrong and should be suppressed and only those here under the current system should be allowed to stay, in the way you mean it.

  •  Please dont call them anchor babies. (7+ / 0-)

    Capitalism thrives on raising funds on assets that have no value.

    by A Runner on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:10:17 AM PDT

    •  It's not only offensive, it's WRONG (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WIds, lirtydies, Calamity Jean

      If you're an undocumented immigrant who has a child who was born in the United States and you're apprehended by the immigration authorities, you can be deported the same as any other undocumented immigrant.  You've then got a choice between taking your child back with you to Mexico or wherever (thus effectively deporting a U.S. citizen) or having friends or relatives take care of the child or turning it over to foster care.

      It drives me absolutely NUTS when people talk about "anchor babies."  There are family tragedies that occur every day precisely because no such thing exists.

  •  How'd Paul Earn His Citizenship? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, cultural worker, La Gitane

    On what basis is Ron Paul a citizen, if not by birth?

    Perhaps because his father is a citizen? But on what basis is that, if not by birth?

    Obviously Ron Paul is a citizen only because someone was an "anchor baby".

    But of course, the only reason Paul could even become known, enough to run for KY senator, is because he was born to his father. And that story really undermines the libertard myth of "achievement by merit".

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:14:24 AM PDT

  •  they really need to travel more (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WIds, leevank

    contrary to that comment, the us is not the only country that says immigrants that have children born in their country are allowed citizenship. so many other countries do also. i don't even know where to start. this i nonsense has got to start

  •  Tom Tancredo came up with this in 2005 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leevank

    So it's not even close to a new idea for either man.

  •  Why is illegal immigration such a priority with (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leevank, esquimaux, martydd, La Gitane, Musial

    so many people?  We have insane wars, horrific crimnal policies especially with respect to drugs, corporate control of government, out of ocntrol military spending, on and on yet such attention to illegal immigration.

    My ancestors immigrated here without papers in the early  and mid 1600s.  

    •  Because of racism (9+ / 0-)

      It's basically one of the few forms of racism that can be 'legitimately' expressed, i.e., one that the media accords a veneer of legitimacy by pretending that the opposition to 'illegals' is merely a desire for conformity with arcane immigration protocols nobody understands, rather than a xenophobic reaction to a skin color darker than theirs and a language they don't understand.

      The only other significant media-legitimized form of racism we have today is the hatred of people from the Middle East on the grounds that 'they could be terrorists'. There is, naturally enough, a huge overlap between the "anti-illegal" people, the pro-racial profiling people, and the pro-torture people.

      •  I have voted dozens of times & I can't recall (7+ / 0-)

        giving so much a a nanosecond of thought to the "issue" of immigration.

        Well, wait, I have given thought about the SOBs who pay illegal aliens illegal wages with no benefits and I have wondered why those employers aren;t being tossed in jail.  As for the illegal aliens themsevles, I view them more as victims.

        •  Bingo (5+ / 0-)

          I have friends who are ubersensitive about the immigration thing (I live in San Diego), but BOY, they sure would be bummed out to lose Maria the Cleaning Lady that they've had for 17 years who charges them $120 a month to clean a 3,000 SF house, or Jose the Gardener at $250/month...

          So it definitely is a racist issue, just a chance to hate on brown people while not really wanting to solve the problem.

          I would like to see illegal employment tamped down; it would be nice for Maria to make what she should be making to clean a house.  And it would be nice for all of us to be able to charge appropriate fees for what we do without the worry of being undercut by illegal employment.

          That said, I have no problem with amnesty - just make everyone legal and we'll all be better off!

          "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

          by La Gitane on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:54:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If minimum wage/benefit laws were enforced (3+ / 0-)

            there'd be no demand for illegal workers.  Why would employers hire an illegal if he or she couldn't underpay them with pretty much no consequence as they do today? No demand for illegal workers provides no incentive for illegals to cross the border.  Why come over for work that is no longer there?

            Am I missing something?  Oh, maybe that US businesses like paying under the table, illegal wages to workers who are completely at their employer's mercy.  Samll businesses in particular, you know the heart and soul of America is small business.

            •  Ah the irony.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lirtydies

              the republicans just love them some peasant classes, don't they?

              ;)  thanks for the discussion!

              "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

              by La Gitane on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:13:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Illegals often are better manual labors. (0+ / 0-)

              They feel more rewarded than Americans for manual labor.
              Even low American wages are extravagant compared to Mexican wages.

              We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

              by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:51:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I posted an article yesterday from the Seattle (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mas Gaviota

              TIMES. Even in a recession, a farmer who had jobs because ICE had cleaned his workstaff out, workstaff who got well above minimum wage, so he advertised for Americans to take over the jobs. He got none at all from America and ended up with guest workers from Jamaica. One illusion of this immigration argument is that aliens take jobs which would be filled by Americans if the lowball and illegal competition were not there. It may be so in some cases, but not anywhere near universal that Americans will take the jobs undocumenteds fill when the undocumenteds are gone.

          •  They want cheap workers and illegals (0+ / 0-)

            are the cheapest workers.

            This isn't complicated folks.

            There are 10-20 million "illegals" here. Most of them are not going to be sent back. They will either be citizens or they will be something else.

            If they are something else we will have apartheid.

            We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

            by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:49:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Also insane wars (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WIds, lirtydies

        are related since Mexicans are indigenous to the continent but weren't exterminated. The comparison Buchanan makes is to Hadrian's wall.

    •  Because it shifts the blame away from Banksters (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lirtydies, Calamity Jean
      And the super rich who caused our economic clusterfuck. Blaming the poorest aming us like immigrants shifts the blame away from the people who outsourced our jobs and set up a rigged "Too Big To Fail" and places that blame on easily recognizable poor non white people.  

      Makes sense for the Corporatists to blame anyone other than the super rich and their free market corporatist lackeys. It makes sense if you are complicit, and I despise these crooks for placing the blame on the poorest among us

      I work for PeanutButterPAC, join us and help fight for Progress!

      by MinistryOfTruth on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:27:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Where does this leave Piyush "Bobby" Jindal? (4+ / 0-)

    Neither of his parents was a citizen of the United States when he was born.  In fact, he wasn't even conceived in the U.S.  In fact, his parents weren't even in the U.S. as immigrants; they were here on student visas.  He was, you might say (if you were a Republican), an "anchor baby".

    So in Rand Paul's America, Bobby Jindal wouldn't be eligible to run for Congress or for governor -- because he wouldn't be a citizen of the U.S.

  •  How many AA's, Latino voters in this state? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, john07801

    Because we need to have them show up to the polls, HEAVY.

  •  What this would do would be to remove Latinos (8+ / 0-)

    by and large from this country. Make no mistake that this is fully racist. The last waves of major immigration in this country have been at a lower percentage than in the past 100-odd years, but since the 1950's, shifted toward Asian and Latino. Latinos, in particular. There have been a few distinct waves of Mexican immigration that have been particularly dominant, such as after the end of NAFTA. There have been a good number of Mexican-American children born here since then. These are who will most specifically be targeted by Rand Paul's brilliance.

    He is amoral, bad, racist, and anti-Constitutional. He doesn't deserve the words I type on this page.

    Fuck Rand Paul and his anti-Mexicanism.

    I'm getting tired of this fucking people.

    "Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted." -- MLK Jr.

    by mahakali overdrive on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:30:16 AM PDT

  •  I used to live in New Jersey (0+ / 0-)

    I remember driving through Freehold NJ and later living near Asbury Park. I have seen Bruce Springstein many times. He has always been a great performer and remains so today.

    Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

    by LWelsch on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:35:52 AM PDT

  •  Anchor baby "phenomenon," enlighten me, anyone? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WIds, leevank, martydd, La Gitane

    Until I read through these comments I had been blissfully unaware that anchor babies had been so successfully  infiltrating our nation.

    Can anybody exlpain whyI should give a hoot, because I don't.

    •  Oh, you can find anchor babies all over the place (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leevank, Mas Gaviota, JamesEB, La Gitane

      They're typically attached to a cord holding down the UFOs their alien parents are floating in.  It's usually tied to their diapers.

    •  I thought using babies as anchors was outlawed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WIds, leevank

      by admiralty law back in the 1880s? :P

      -9.00, -7.69 "Tyrants and torturers will never manage to hide their comic stumbles behind their cosmic acrobatics."--Vladimir Nabokov

      by JamesEB on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:00:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Overpopulation and environmental damage (0+ / 0-)

      Do you get the Daily Grist environmental newsleter?  In there are articles about being childfree by choice.  It's American citizens who decide not to have a baby because of the environmental damage that life will cause by living 80 years at an American standard of living.

      So good people who would probably be great parents forgo having children to try to save the planet.  Meanwhile the illegals down the street from me are having their 8th child.  That woman has been continuously pregnant since 2003.  8 kids and counting who 20 years from now will be producing 64 grandchilren.

      The Childfree by choice movement is being connned by illegal immigration if you ask me.  

  •  Surely to God, this man cannot be elected, (0+ / 0-)

    can he?

  •  Stupid Sperm Club (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mas Gaviota

    Why should we be surprised by this latest "Randism?" Rand is just another bellyaching "Tea Partyer" who never read or can't understand the U.S. Constitution. Former Rep. Pat Schroeder used to call the likes of W and other meritless political heirs, members of the "Lucky Sperm Club." In Rand's case, make that a member of the "Stupid Sperm Club," illustriously founded by his father. Conway has got to defeat him. For more on Rand and his Randisms, read this

  •  Trivial nonsense (0+ / 0-)

    If this is where you are going put your energies in 2010, then the wave of GOP victories is going to be big.

  •  Great to hear this just mentioned on... (0+ / 0-)

    MSNBC. :-)

    " But as Americans, and as a nation, we will not be terrorized. We will not cower in fear. We will not be intimidated." - President Obama, 5/4

    by BarackStarObama on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:56:34 AM PDT

  •  The Amerikaaners love him for it. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, leevank, rhetoricus

    Last year a Gallup poll put the ethnic make-up of the GOP at 89% white.  
    Soon, I believe, it will be close to 99%.

  •  Once again, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WIds, Mas Gaviota

    Rand Paul demonstrates that he has no business running for the Senate, not just because his statements smack of racism, but also because they betray a knowledge deficit that speaks poorly to his fitness for public office:

    We’re the only country I know of that allows people to come in illegally have a baby and then that baby becomes a citizen. And I think that should stop also.

    This isn't true.  Birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli, is the law in at least 33 other countries, including Canada, Brazil and Mexico.  This is because, like virtually all the other countries who allow birthright citizenship, America is a country that was created by immigrants.  Our historically open policy toward immigration has served us exceedingly well over the course of our country's existence.  Tampering with the 14th Amendment is tampering with one of the things that made us a great nation.  Not to mention opening Pandora's box for the further restriction of citizenship rights.

    Rand Paul is a racist and an idiot, and he has no business holding public office of any kind.

    •  Well Native Amerians were born here (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      unruli

      but I think they were excluded from citizenship for quite a while.  So we did at least at some point choose which of those born here became citizens.

      •  I think Native Americans (0+ / 0-)

        were excluded based on the idea that, while they were born in the US, they weren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  This was changed with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted full citizenship to all Native Americans.

        I don't understand the legal issues regarding why they were excluded from birthright citizenship, but my guess is it had something to do with their status under the various treaties that the US Government had with Native Americans.  It also bears noting that about two-thirds of Native Americans were already citizens, and at least some of those obtained their citizenship through birthright.

        •  You're correct, and many were in fact citizens (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Big Tex

          By the time the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was passed, most Native Americans had in fact become citizens, whether by enlisting in the armed forces, assimilating into the general society, or affirmatively renouncing their tribal membership.  That law granted citizenship to the final 125,000 or so of the roughly 300,000 Native Americans who hadn't yet been granted citizenship.

          The idea, as I understand it, was that Native Americans living on reservations were directly subject to the jurisdiction of their respective tribes, which were considered dependent "sovereign" nations in "Indian Country," rather than directly to the jurisdiction of the United States.  That may well have been a reasonable proposition at one point, but the Act basically recognized that by 1924, it was largely a legal fiction.

  •  The obvious solution to immigration (0+ / 0-)

    Is to implant microchips in every REAL 'murican's forehead (perhaps with a helpful visible symbol like... oh I don't know a number six or two or three...)

    That way we'll all be totally safe and never have anything to worry about again...

    (Does this need a snark tag?)

    "If you can't lower heaven, raise hell!" - Mother Jones

    by al ajnabee on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:09:46 PM PDT

  •  Prior to 1892 Immigration & Naturalization (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Trotskyrepublican

    matters were pretty much left to the individual states. As a matter of fact, the first federal law addressing immigration and settlement in this country was passed in 1864. That law actually encouraged immigration.

    Back in the 1860's and 1870's, an immigrant could become a citizen in Massachusetts by just going before a judge, swearing allegiance and having one or two citizens vouching for your good character. It probably was the same in other states with the possible exceptions for blacks and other people of color or obvious racial differences.

    We find ourselves in our current situation because of the perceived need to control immigration. I believe it stems from racial and ethnic tensions. Xenophobia, I think you call it. I really do not know how you deal with xenophobia.

    If you are older than 55, never take a sleeping pill and a laxative at the same time!

    by fredlonsdale on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:11:54 PM PDT

    •  Yep, when people say "my ancestors jumped ... (3+ / 0-)

      through all the legal hoops to immigrate legally," my response is that unless your ancestors arrived a lot more recently than mine, the only "legal hoops" involved were to show up at a port of entry, not be Chinese, and not have an obvious communicable disease.

    •  1864 - The end of the Civil War (0+ / 0-)

      The government had been encouraging immigration to get cannon fodder.  After the war, so many young men had died, we were desperate for new labor and, with a wide open frontier, we could easily handle the influx.  It was welcomed and needed.

      Well it isn't 1864 anymore.  We don't have a labor shortage, we have massive unemployment.  We don't have a frontier.  In fact, we need to stop sprawl before we destroy all our farmland.

      This isn't a matter of opinion, it's fact.  It's the laws of physics that we're over our carrying capacity.  We can no longer support unchecked immigration, we simply cannot afford it.

      If you think we can afford it, tell me how.

      •  Cannon fodder? Think not (0+ / 0-)

        The North did not rely on immigrants to fight the civil war. Quite the contrary, immigrant factory workers in the north were voluntarily willing to fight for the north because they saw slavery as a threat to their jobs and economic security. While it is true that the rich, particularly in New York City, could avoid service by paying someone else to serve in their place. they did not hire immigrants per se. They hired poor people.

        The north had lots of people and they had the industry to win the war.

        Another factoid that might interest you is the number of southern Confederates who left the US to escape reconstruction. Some 9,000 left for Brazil (Sao Paulo State - Santa Bárbara D'Oeste).

        If you are older than 55, never take a sleeping pill and a laxative at the same time!

        by fredlonsdale on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:08:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  DeMint endorsed this idjit! (0+ / 0-)

    i wonder if DeMint believes what Rand believes!!

    i hope Conway wipes up the floor with Rand and his bunch of haters.

  •  I used to live in Arizona for 10 years (0+ / 0-)

    Anchor Baby was a term that has been used there for quite a while.  If the mother was visiting the States and had her baby, the baby became a US citizen and couldn't be deported.  The Mother got to stay in the US too.  I'm not going to say that it doesn't happen, but I do not think it is as prevalent as these two assclowns think.

    I really wonder why we cannot secure our borders but realize at the same time that people only want to come here because it is a good country.  How many people are hopping the fence INTO Mexico, Iraq or Pakistan?

    I'm not saying I support ILlegal immigration; I do support immigration.

    Republicans: Proud graduates of the Royal School of Self-Interest.

    by winter outhouse on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:29:49 PM PDT

    •  quite a bit, actually (0+ / 0-)

      How many people are hopping the fence INTO Mexico

      All along Mexico's southern border. Some end up here.

      black kos tue-fri/ sistahspeak fri/wglb fri/c&j daily!

      by terrypinder on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:32:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That was once the case, but it hasn't been for .. (0+ / 0-)

      a long time now.  Parents of babies born here are deported all the time, which means that either their U.S. citizen child is effectively deported along with them, or the child is turned over to friends, relatives, or foster care.

      But minor children can't sponsor parents or other relatives.

  •  It's another shiny object for their base (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leevank, Trotskyrepublican

    None of them actually thinks a constitutional amendment (which would be required) has a snowball's chance in hell.

    Smoke and mirrors. No real solutions, not even any real attempt to reach any solutions. That's the modern Republican Party. Disgusting.

  •  Rand Paul hearts the Constitution (4+ / 0-)

    Except when he doesn't.  What a racist hypocrite.

  •  Come On Folks, Dig Deep! (0+ / 0-)

    That Act Blue thermometer has been stuck on $24,039 and 556 since I donated to it last night.

    Even a $5 or $10 contribution would help.

    Not voting gets Republicans elected. Gloating about it on DKOS isn't helpful either.

    by kefauver on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:48:57 PM PDT

  •  Its more blame the poor. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kefauver

    Poor people come to America looking to build a better life and the right wing calls them the problem.

    Well they aren't the problem, they are people. People just like us.

    We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. Does that only apply to American citizens?

    We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

    by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:55:13 PM PDT

  •  Dear Mr. Paul... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kefauver

    You side FUCKING LOST THAT WAR.  Please make a note of it.

    To the WH: "It's your job to f*ck-up power; it's Fox's job to f*ck-up truth.' - Jon Stewart

    by RichM on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:55:27 PM PDT

  •  No surprise, Rethugs don't know lost The Civil Wa (0+ / 0-)

    r and modern Rethuglicans have never accepted the Civl War amendments which essentially made the modern Constitution, i.e., the one where there really are no 'state's rights', especially on civil/legal rights.  That is why none of them understand their blather about 'constitutional conservativism' only makes sense if you mean the Confederacy's constitution.

    Ironic as it was their party's first incarnation that litigated the issue on the battlefeild and passed the Civil War amendments - and use to understand what they intended (witness the Republican outrage at the time to the SlaughterHouse cases.)

  •  I love irony. Here we have the party (sort of) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MinistryOfTruth

    that demands that we "return to the Constitution (whatever the hell that means) without ever having to look at it.  

    Someone should tell them that it is not a multiple choice compact.

  •  It couldn't be retroactive..?! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Norm in Chicago

    "to expel current citizens.."

    This couldn't be done, no? Ex post facto and all that? Is this what he's claiming he'll do?

    If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

    by rhetoricus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:38:54 PM PDT

    •  No, it can't be retroactive. But it can be legal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rhetoricus, CalliopeIrjaPearl

      They can't strip citizenship from current American citizens and I would never stand for it.

      However, it could be applied to all new babies born going forward.  And why not?  I'm half Norwegian, so I decided to look up the laws of my socially advanced European homeland.  Norway has single payer healthcare, a very progressive social agenda, so what do they say?

      A child (born in Norway or elsewhere) acquires Norwegian citizenship at birth if:

      the father is a Norwegian citizen; or
      the mother is a Norwegian citizen.

      From 1 September 2006 the law no longer requires the father to be married to the mother.

      In general, birth in Norway does not, in itself, confer Norwegian citizenship.

      So tell me, what's wrong with putting it to a vote to change the Constitution to more closely match progressive European legislation?

      Because the hard truth is, if you want the US to be more socialist, to have guaranteed healthcare and retirement for all citizens, then we need to be able to control who is a citizen.  We do not have the resources to give full fledged socialism to all of Mexico that wants it.  If you try to do it, we will collapse under a mountain of debt.

      The libertarian position of every man for himself actually allows for current birth citizenship because it isn't another mouth to feed.  So Rand Paul is only accepting reality.  If you do want to feed every mouth, then we have to draw the line somewhere.  Just like Europe does.

  •  To be fair, (0+ / 0-)

    it's not unconstitutional to propose a constitutional amendment to re-write the Constitution. Maybe the current CA governor would then run for president?

    Progressives are proponents of an electronic/virtual border.

  •  If being born inside its borders (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MinistryOfTruth

    doesn't make you a citizen of a nation, what does?

    are we gonna start having to take citizenship tests, which test our loyalty to Dear Leader or something?

  •  While we're abolishing citizenship rights.. (5+ / 0-)

    ..can we please start with corporate citizenship?

    If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

    by rhetoricus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:58:45 PM PDT

  •  and yet, immigration reduction STILL NEEDED! (0+ / 0-)

    At the end of the day the country desperately needs immigration reduction (BOTH legal and illegal).  It will help everyone but employers.  When you consider employment, education and health care costs, population congestion, terrorism, disease, language issues, etc, etc, how can you come to any other conclusion?  Does anyone consider the absurdity of continuing to bring in large numbers of foreigners at a time of high unemployment and budget crisis?

    Some numbers worth considering: A whopping 82% of our population growth will be due to immigration in the years ahead under present policy.  It can nearly double our population in just a few decades.  If we think we're crowded now or having trouble funding health care and public education, just wait.  When you look around you at all the recent immigrants can it be argued they're not taking jobs and lowering wages?

    I may feel sorry for the immigrants which we will have to start restricting but their main problem always has been the poor policies in their home countries and not that the US won't let enough people in.  We have to draw a line somewhere.  China and India could send us 10 plus million each year with no problem.  We've already taken in 10% or 20% of Mexico.  On balance, the US has done more than its share to help the world's poor.  Immigration policies must also take into account the effect these policies have on America's population.  

    It's become obvious that immigration has become a loser to all of us except employers who benefit by constantly flooding the labor markets.  Those who insist on easy immigration should go explain to poor Americans (including poor Black and Hispanic citizens) why they must continue to be undercut by cheap foreign labor in their own country.  Quite a few employers are misusing immigration to their advantage at the expense of everyone else these days.

    •  OK, you have repeat-posted this comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mas Gaviota
      at least a few dozen times by now, making it a spam comment.

      While it is your right (and even your civic duty) to civilly participate in a factually sound debate on America's immigration policies, the "China and India could send us 10 plus million each year with no problem" part of the comment is objectionable for two reasons:

      1. it does not reflect the facts as they exist (the last I checked, China and India account for only about 90,000 immigrants each out of a total of about 1 million naturalized every year). Apparently there is a 7% per-country cap on the number of immigrants admitted every year, regardless of the size of the country in question, making China and India's large population sizes essentially irrelevant to this discussion. I am not sure, but Mexico maybe excepted from this cap.

      2. intentional or not, this segment amounts to training fear-mongering and xenophobia towards two specific immigrant groups, namely Chinese and Indian Americans.

      I therefore ask you to drop this segment from future repostings. Better yet, why not post a thoughtful, objective and well-researched diary on the subject and link to it in your signature line, instead of repeatedly spamming the site with same comment over and over?

      Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

      by iceweasel on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:18:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  actually, this idea has been around for a while (0+ / 0-)

    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
    --Tom Harkin

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:40:15 PM PDT

  •  Ummm... (0+ / 0-)

    If Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was modified by an Amendment proposed and ratified in accordance with the procedures in Article V, such that only those born in the United States to citizens or legally-resident aliens were "citizens of the United States, and of the State in which they reside" then it would, by definition, not be "unconstitutional".

    It might, or might not, be a good idea, but it would not violate the Constitution.

    If Rand Paul is advocating changing the Constitution, it won't be unconstitutional. The guy in Arizona's proposal is, but that's only because he's not proposing an Article V amendment.

    --Shannon

    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

    by Leftie Gunner on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:40:18 PM PDT

  •  How many states would vote to ratify? (0+ / 0-)

    Arizona for sure, probably Texas. Utah, Idaho, most of the southern states, maybe. But no way in hell 38.

  •  Toast. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Trotskyrepublican

    This mook is toast.

  •  Not A Rand Fan But . . . (0+ / 0-)

    Since when did wanting to alter the Constitution equate with not respecting it? We have a well defined process for ammending the constitution and it has already been done 27 times. Rand strikes me a closet White Supremist, wrapping himself in the sheet of Libratarianism and I think he will taint whatever he touches.

    That said, there is nothing inheriently raciest is reconsidering the 14th Amendment. I am completely open to arguments that its time has past. In world in which quick travel exists and the US population is no longer in need of large numbers of immigrants, that it may be time to reconsider granting automatic citizenship to everybody who is born here, regardless of the status of their parent's. I am also open to arugments as to why this would be a bad idea.

Meteor Blades, grytpype, Tookish, JekyllnHyde, zzyzx, TXdem, ssmt, murphy, grollen, laurak, noabsolutes, BigOkie, bosdcla14, sphealey, Shockwave, rightiswrong, eeff, phenry, dsb, polecat, FyodorFish, MarkInSanFran, mataliandy, BlackSheep1, rhp, boadicea, mkfarkus, vmibran, barath, Transmission, Aquarius40, roses, jbeach, BruinKid, dchill, Iberian, Cedwyn, lirtydies, Texknight, danthrax, grannyhelen, Bulldawg, Oy the Billybumbler, defluxion10, GreatDane, rlharry, RebeccaG, Timbuk3, alizard, kismet, Matt Esler, mungley, Man Eegee, tomjones, eco, lyvwyr101, Josiah Bartlett, sawgrass727, davidkc, Julie Gulden, Big Tex, Bluesee, marina, 3goldens, Ckntfld, klamothe, mjd in florida, PBen, ccasas, kefauver, basquebob, ChemBob, Brooke In Seattle, Dobber, reflectionsv37, Viceroy, Pam from Calif, Sun Tzu, jimreyn, paxpdx, Savvy813, neroden, wiscmass, deepsouthdoug, Snud, begone, reddbierd, Philpm, Mother Mags, martini, Nance, hlee1169, BachFan, irishwitch, tarheelblue, sherlyle, Clytemnestra, Junkyard Dem, BlueInARedState, Themistoclea, tonyahky, kestrel9000, carolita, fou, mystery2me, luckydog, jwhitmill, StrayCat, gooderservice, Libby Shaw, Doctor Frog, real world chick, njheathen, armadillo, bleeding heart, Preston S, el cid, AndyS In Colorado, doinaheckuvanutjob, rsie, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, means are the ends, shaharazade, pseudopod, Hedwig, mariachi mama, markthshark, Nulwee, Aaa T Tudeattack, pale cold, asilomar, Loudoun County Dem, dmh44, SouthernFried, wildweasels, terabytes, DWG, sfbob, bnasley, kingyouth, second gen, Uberbah, Oreo, millwood, Moderation, Progressive Chick, cececville, Rumarhazzit, madgranny, JML9999, sable, VA Breeze, JDWolverton, Mas Gaviota, mconvente, condorcet, MikePhoenix, scooter in brooklyn, ScottyUrb, elwior, brooklynbadboy, CDH in Brooklyn, ajr111240, wonderful world, Greasy Grant, Calamity Jean, pamelabrown, icebergslim, Jeff Y, mofembot, petulans, o the umanity, CeeusBeeus, BYw, ekyprogressive, statsone, ijarne, fayea, maggiejean, SciMathGuy, Rei, 1BQ, Bule Betawi, multilee, MufsMom, Neon Vincent, WSComn, Coach Jay, litoralis, greengemini, juca, TheOtherJimM, RustyCannon, Stranded Wind, more liberal than you, Norm in Chicago, Partisan Progressive, velvet blasphemy, SciVo, cultural worker, JesseCW, DefendOurConstitution, Daily Activist, moonbatlulu, elziax, jazzence, Corneliusmingus, kevinpdx, CityLightsLover, sfarkash, 57andFemale, ArthurPoet, Nonconformist, mahakali overdrive, Adept2u, loveendures, deviant24x, brentbent, BrighidG, confitesprit, awcomeon, marabout40, flitedocnm, dorkenergy, alpolitics, Susan Grigsby, amk for obama, teachme2night, Ann T Bush, Aramis Wyler, Crabby Abbey, Eddie L, calichristi, sullivanst, ClearBuzz, DiegoUK, aggie98, NYWheeler, halef, Johnny Q, rja, washunate, Casual Wednesday, dclarke, roystah, njlanis, cocinero, alamacTHC, CA Berkeley WV, fiercefilms, Actbriniel, BrowniesAreGood, The Bohemian Rebel, SuperBowlXX, DupageBlue, myadestes, La Gitane, BlueJessamine, We Want Change, BlueHead, SoCaliana, thethinveil, marleycat, txflower, Wheever, BarackStarObama, felldestroyed, LSmith, pensivelady, cassandra123, poliwrangler, Andrew F Cockburn, CowKingDeluxe, blackjackal, thejoshuablog, Proleft, grannycarol, ParkRanger, MichaelNY, allergywoman, Rejoinder, TX Dem 50, livingthedream, GenXangster, ridemybike, nutbutter, wolfie1818, Flying Goat, FireBird1, We Won, IndieGuy

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site