Posted on 09/14/2007 6:17:20 PM PDT by traderrob6
On his campaign swing through Florida, Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson has hammered away illegal immigration, saying that America must secure its borders to ensure national security.[snip]
Friday, he went a step further.Thompson, a former senator from Tennessee, said it might be time to reconsider the country's long-standing practice -- one prescribed by the Constitution -- of granting citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil
"That law was created in another time and place for valid reasons," Thompson said during a campaign stop here. "It probably needs to be revisited."
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
But, but, but the Donutters and the Paulbearers say that Fred’s just an open borders globalist! It can’t be...Fred must be lying.
/sarc
If the libs really had anything going for them, they wouldn't be this worried.
An often overlooked question for voters is "How many years do we have to spend with nobody but Bush's and Clinton's in the White House?"
Hmmm...Where's he been for the past decade?
The “jurisdiction” word has been ignored and disregarded for too long. That is what needs rectifying. We don’t need a Constitutional Convention to do it......Just some SCOTUS justices who take their Oath of Office seriously.
The articles money quote:
“All have taken a hard line against illegal immigration but as of Friday no other contender has gone as far as Thompson.”
“Duncan Hunter acts on immigration issues”
Duncan Hunter acts on illegal alien issues, as well.
He’s the only US politician I’ve heard say as much. Very impressive, imo.
What other Countries have that kind of law? If your baby is born there, it’s an automatic citizen, even if you aren’t a Citizen?
I hate to be so ignorant but I’d really like to know and you people are so smart, I figured someone could answer my question.
Unfortunately he can’t poll above 2%.
The articles money quote: “All have taken a hard line against illegal immigration but as of Friday no other contender has gone as far as Thompson.”
you might think it is the “money” quote, but it’s false.
hint-hint: Hunter, Tancredo
No, what they will say is ...”Yeah, he says tat now...but (INSERT TIME HERE) ago he said....”
Show me old the video of him demanding secure borders, show me past video of him demanding secure borders and an end to this nationwide lawlessness.
Thanks.
“you might think it is the “money” quote, but it’s false.”
No, it’s accurate as neither Hunter or Tancredo are “contenders”.
The “. . .subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a lot more specific than the penumbra of privacy stretch that was used to authorize abortion.
Thompson is wrong in that nobody ever passed such a law. It is a rather recent interpretation of a Constitutional amendment that was meant for native born slaves who were not considered full citizens. It is an interpretation that has gone both ways since passage of the amendment depending on who was in the Supreme Court.
Many people besides diplomats are not granted automatic citizenship by US birth, including foreign military assigned to the United States, temporarily assigned workers for foreign companies, and some other cases.
Whenever a foreigner gets in trouble with the law he is to be provided contact and counsel from his nation’s embassy, and they frequently provide input to the court proceedings. This right to foreign government intervention almost certainly implies that the individual is not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
It’s just waiting for someone to test it. Today’s crop of politicians don’t have the guts.
Fred Thompson becomes POTUS.
Duncan Hunter watches reruns of Gunsmoke.
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.