Look at this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052802231.html
I can understand being against “anchor babies”.
However, how can one claim to be a strict Constitutionalist, and then contradict something explicit in the US Constitution?
laslo.kovacs
May 29, 2010 at 2:57 am
Look, you have to undestand. Rand Paul is freakin’ crazy.
The s—t does not fall far from the bat in this case.
Mark
May 29, 2010 at 3:44 am
He undoubtedly means that it wasn’t the intent of the drafters/proposers/ratifiers of the 14th to grant citizenship status to those children. He’s interpreting the 14th in it’s historical context.
D.R.
May 29, 2010 at 4:11 am
Conservatives only acknowledge the parts of the Constitution they prefer.
They like to skip the Separation of Church & State, and Habeas Corpus parts as well.
KatrinaL
May 29, 2010 at 4:37 am
it’s an amendment…which section? 1,2,3,4 or 5?
Chupate esa!
May 29, 2010 at 4:56 am
Because he want to party like it was 1779…
JetsUnderPats 14-31
May 29, 2010 at 5:11 am
Rand Paul has no F*ing clue as to what the constitution says. His father is a looney but has some knowledge – this guy is just a looney.
@Mark – by that logic we could just do away with the second amendment.
Godless Heathen
May 29, 2010 at 5:44 am
I think the reason is pretty obvious.
john a
May 29, 2010 at 6:42 am
What I find the most ironic thing about Rand Paul he is against the government regulations on business but when the oil spill happened he blamed the government for it. So it is the government faults that they didn’t regulate enough on off shore drilling but the oil companies don’t need regulations. Doesn’t make sense but nothing he says make sense.
Ian T
May 29, 2010 at 6:55 am
The 14th Amendment needed to be fixed! That amendment was for the people who immigrated back in the 1900’s. Today is different, we need to change that to accept children who are natural born from natural born Americans to live in America. We have enough people in America who don’t want to work or illegally comes to america and not pay taxes.
James L
May 29, 2010 at 7:33 am
I think it is an issue that ought to be addressed, but since it is in the Constitution, it would require a Constitutional amendment to change it. But perhaps they have learned their lesson from the democrats. Just do it and let the courts worry about the constitution 20 years from now. The DC gun ban was unconstitutional, but it still was in effect for nearly 3 decades.
Apocalypse Now
May 29, 2010 at 7:35 am
Because he’s Rand Paul and like most Republicans talks before he thinks.
Two Plus Two Equals Five
May 29, 2010 at 8:04 am
Typically, Constitutionalists are those who support the Constitution and Bill of Rights ONLY. The later amendments are “adulterations”.
For instance, the Eighteenth Amendment (TOTALLY unconstitutional), which was later repealed, was an adulteration.
Rand Paul IS a Constitutionalist.
Duct Tape Fixes All
May 29, 2010 at 8:58 am
Because when the government of the day added the 14th Amendment, they had no clue that a large group of people would later exploit that and use their baby making facilities to stay in America illegally. I think if you went back and asked them about it, they would feel differently about it and may have worded the clause differently so cut out that possibility. I don’t think we need to repeal the Amendment, maybe just add a requirement that at least one of the parents is a legal American citizen.
And how come everyone is saying Ron Paul is crazy? I would like to know exactly why you think he is crazy.
kpk02
May 29, 2010 at 9:05 am
It’s not quite a clear cut amendment. Specifically you’re talking about Section 1:
“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. ”
What exactly does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean? It sounds like if you don’t make them subject to the jurisdiction thereof then they wouldn’t automatically become citizens on birth.
In any case, where does it explicitly say in there that all children born in the US will automatically become US citizens 100% of the time regardless of anything else? It has been interpreted at times to mean that but the actual wording allows for dispute on what exactly it means. Personally, I think what the amendment is saying is this:
If someone is born in the US and is required to live under US laws and governance, then they must be granted citizenship. The intent was clearly regarding slavery so that their children wouldn’t be born into the country and stuck without any way out and no rights.
However, who’s to say you can’t just send the child to their home country and not require them to live under US law. Then based on the amendment wording you wouldn’t have to automatically grant them citizenship.
I’m speaking solely of the amendment here btw.. not any other laws that may exist regarding citizenship.
Atheist Chuck
May 29, 2010 at 9:32 am
At least he’s being direct. Amendments ARE constitutional.
Still Quazee
May 29, 2010 at 10:22 am
Here’s a clue for ya…..the 14th, section 1, IS the anchor baby clause which would have to be amended to accomplish the end of such practices.
Perhaps something along the lines of ‘all persons born in the US of CITIZENS of the US, or naturalized in the US, are citizens of the US’ leaving the rest of it unchanged.
Geology Rock Star
May 29, 2010 at 10:41 am
because he is a hypocrite who will say anything to get elected
((Samian!!))