Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference
Posted on 09/29/2007 6:12:59 AM PDT by Josh Painter
When Fred Thompson said it might be time to review the practice of granting citizenship to every child born on American soil, he didn't acknowledge the seismic shift such an idea represents.
Citizenship by birth has been prescribed by the Constitution since 1868 -- and upheld for 109 years by the Supreme Court -- but the Republican presidential candidate made it sound anachronistic.
"I think that law was created at another time and place for valid reasons," the former U.S. senator from Tennessee said earlier this month. "It probably needs to be revisited."
Thompson's comments have angered Hispanic leaders -- many of them Republicans -- who say they are a crass attempt to court the GOP base.
With conservative voters demanding an end to illegal immigration, Republican candidates have been talking tough on that issue for months. In July, an adviser to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the Romney campaign was researching the birthright-citizenship issue.
"It's not just ramping up the rhetoric," said Alex Villalobos, a Republican state senator from Miami. "It's pandering to extremists."
State Rep. David Rivera, R-Miami, while not criticizing any candidate directly, called the idea a "xenophobic" notion that could drive Hispanic voters from the GOP.
"At best, this would be seen as mean-spirited," he said. "At worst, it's seen as bigotry."
Thompson made the comments in Cape Coral as he barnstormed through Florida two weeks ago.
He was blasting so-called "chain migration" -- the legal immigration preference that enables naturalized or birthright citizens to bring their non-American family members here -- when he was asked about children born here to illegal immigrants.
Thompson said he was less concerned about them, but that the issue of automatic citizenship should be reviewed.
"It probably needs to be revisited," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
All of them, huh?
Snort.
Not the whole story.
I am guessing the hispanics that are angered are non-voting illegal aliens who want the anchor baby amendment to stand. Any immigrant(that means aliens here legally)would not care a whit about the anchor baby clause(if it really is such)because since they are here legally their babies are all citizens. I do not think that people who break our laws should be rewarded by having their children made citizens simply because they are born here, this is not law in most other nations, most notably Mexico, why should it be law here?
I’m not sure why you make such a thing an issue when you know there ain’t no way in hell you’re ever going to be able to change the Constitution anyway.
Liberal media. The Sentinel is owned by The Tribune Co., which also owns the Chicago Trib, LA Times, Baltimore Sun, and various other left-leaning media outlets.
Another leftist rag heard from.
Don’t wrap your fish in this rag, you will never get the smell out of the fish.
Okay, now the statement is correct......
A kitten born in a stable should not be called a colt.
“It’s not just ramping up the rhetoric,” said Alex Villalobos, a Republican state senator from Miami. “It’s pandering to extremists.”
Let’s conduct an unbiased poll to see which position is the “extreme one.”
That is an interesting why of handling it. It would also solve many other problems.
Not by a long shot.
So the plain language of the 14th Amendment means that Congress CAN, by legislation, define who is "subject to the jurisdiction," which in turn could end the practice of granting automatic citizenship to anchor babies. Lord, I hate it, when reporters who haven't bothered to read the document assert falsely what is in the Constitution.
Congressman Billybob
My thoughts exactly. Half of modern news stories are like this though - their headlines purport to be telling us how some group thinks/reacts about something. The rest of us are supposed to find this significant, apparently. Of course, you dig into the article and they have quotes from like 2-3 people, mostly professional grievance mongers and/or political hacks, from that group justifying the headline. Meaning, of course, that this is really an article telling you what the news reporter thinks, and the news reporter decided to use the group as a prop/sock-puppet in which to cloak his opinion.
It's gotten so that I expect it. Interestingly, my immediate reaction to seeing "Group X Angered by Y's Statement" headlines is that my opinion of Y increases. He must have really ticked off the propagandist news reporter, after all.
Another thing that always comes to mind: if I were a member of the group that is supposedly "angered" (or whatever), I'd feel offended and patronized by this propaganda approach. Because the subtext is that this group is a monolithic blob, of one mind about everything.
This WAS a change to the Constitution. The problem is that it has not been interpreted by the courts the way the enactors intended. It was NEVER intended to give Citizenship to the children of foreigners, whether here legally or not. And, the question of whether children of ILLEGAL aliens are citizens has never been taken to the Supreme Court, let alone ruled on.
John / Billybob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.