Rand Paul: Children of Illegals Shouldn’t Become Citizens

2010 May 30
by bc3b

Rand Paul created a little controversy in a taped interview with Russia Today when he stated that he did not believe the children of illegal aliens should automatically become U.S. citizens. The U.S. is one of few countries in the world that bestows citizenship on someone just because they’re born in the country. This provision (in the 14th Amendment) was drawn up to deal with freed slaves.

The real problem, Paul said, is that the U.S. “shouldn’t provide an easy route to citizenship” because of “demographics.”

According to Paul, the proportion of Mexican immigrants that register as Democrats is 3-to-1, so of course “the Democrat Party is for easy citizenship.”

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

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether or not their parents are U.S. citizens.

Paul’s not alone here. Others have suggested that the U.S. should change this part of the Constitution, including 90 House Republicans who have co-sponsored a bill that seeks to do just that.

Immigration talk comes in at around the 8:30 mark (link):

Hat tip:TPM

14 Responses leave one →
  1. 2010 May 30 3:03 pm
    [1]
    JustMary permalink

    This would ease a few things- one would be pregnant women making the dangerous journey here sometimes only barely making it to the hospital, if you wanna talk humanitarian- which is worse? Removing the water and food left for those pregnant women making the journey? Or make it so that there is less pressure on those women to cross in a delicate condition?

    When parents are deported, there would be no worry for the family being split apart. But frankly, why aren’t people being honest enough to say that this is the parents’ fault in the first place? They put that child in that situation. They are the ones choosing to leave their child behind. OR are they afraid for their child being an illegal in their home country? This is something leaders of home countries need to ‘splain.

  2. 2010 May 30 3:22 pm
    [2]
    bc3b permalink

    To the best of my knwoeldge, the U.S. and Great Britain are two of very few countries where one receives citizenship simply for being born in the country, regardless of the status of the child’sparents.

  3. 2010 May 30 3:33 pm
    [3]
    drdog09 permalink

    JM,

    Its a matter of incentives.

    * The mother gets here, has an anchor baby, and gets to stay as the care giver.

    * Father gets here too. Makes money to maintain the family plus send some money home.

    * Businesses hiring illegals also benefit with a compliant workforce.

    Remove those incentives. Send the bill for the hospital care, schooling, other incidentals to the host country. Enforce the employment laws. Businesses that don’t comply lose their license to operate. Aliens here do fill out paper work, forged, russle thru the W2’s and send that bill to, to the host country. In jail? Send that bill too, to the host country.

    Host country says they can’t pay? Do they receive foreign aid? Deduct from it. Down to zero? Do they have favored nation status? Remove it. Encourage the host country to keep their countrymen out of here.

  4. 2010 May 30 3:39 pm
    [4]
    drdog09 permalink

    BC,

    The Commonwealth countries have a really weird system. Yes you receive citizenship at birth. But you do not retain those rights unless you stay there. My last boss was a Canadian. Commonwealth countries do not have absentee ballot. If he wants to vote in a Canadian election he has to travel to Canada to do so. Same with England, BVI, India, etc. All sort of other examples too numerous to mention.

    That’s why the term ‘being colonial’ has a whole different meaning than we think of it.

  5. 2010 May 30 4:32 pm
    [5]

    What’s so contriversial

  6. 2010 May 30 4:44 pm
    [6]
    bc3b permalink

    To MSM it’s controversial

  7. 2010 May 30 5:14 pm
    [7]

    “HBO’s Bill Maher: “I thought when we elected a black president, we were going to get a black president. You know, this [BP oil spill] is where I want a real black president. I want him in a meeting with the BP CEOs, you know, where he lifts up his shirt where you can see the gun in his pants. That’s — (in black man voice) ‘we’ve got a motherfu**ing problem here?’ Shoot somebody in the foot.””

    Racist. 😉

  8. 2010 May 30 5:34 pm
    [8]
    Havok permalink

    Ok off topic but I had to post this.
    I laughed, my wife was horrified….
    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/odd/2010-05/30/c_13323923.htm

  9. 2010 May 30 5:36 pm
    [9]
    Havok permalink

  10. 2010 May 30 5:54 pm
    [10]
    JustMary permalink

    Next thing you know, the baby will be asking for a shot of Jack with his baby food……

  11. 2010 May 30 6:42 pm
    [11]
    mulletover permalink

    There is a gun thread over at Ace of Spades wherein dri asks “what do you carry?” It was just posted and comments are up to 370.

    There are a lot of armed badasses out and about, and they are not taking census questionaires. They are waiting for the SHTF event.

    Reading through the comments, a few have lost all their guns in tragic fishing accidents.

    Get it on.

  12. 2010 May 30 8:22 pm
    [12]
    drdog09 permalink

    Gotta watch it there Mullet, gun eating lakes are as notorious as kite eating trees.

  13. 2010 May 30 10:17 pm
    [13]
    Deckard permalink

    I’m starting to like Rand Paul . . . . I definitely agree with him on this. But of course I live in anchor baby central – Southern California. Just look at what the practice has done to the LA Unified School District over the past decade . . . . ’nuff said.

  14. 2010 June 1 11:33 am
    [14]
    MDefl permalink

    This is a law that made sense 145 years ago. It does not make sense today.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.