Huckabee vows to defy birthright citizenship

Washington Times ^ | January 8, 2008 | Stephen Dinan

[Uriah_lost]

He must be wearing a rut in that “road to Damascus”....

[jpsb]

Yes he thinks we are that stupid, if he gets the nomination watch him flip/flop back.

[calcowgirl]

So your opposition to birthright citizenship is because you think ...

Nope. I never said that. Although I could add that to a long list of reasons.

Your paranoia is annoying.

Your ignorance of history is annoying. ("Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. ")

[DesScorp]

So now we have two flip-floppers.

[dforest]

I agree with you on birthright citizenship.

Citizenship should only be granted to people born here who have a parent/parents, who enter legally.

[royhayward]

Scenario:

Maria and Miguel Suarez, lifelong citizens of Mexico, have always dreamed of having a better life for their children. With Maria eight-months pregnant, they decide to make the trek northward so their newborn child can be born in the United States. Despite paying a coyote $1000 to assist their border crossing, they are apprehended by the border patrol and arrested for illegal entry and assault against officers (throwing rocks and injuring a BP agent.) They are taken to the detention center where, after only two days, Maria goes into labor and delivers a healthy boy, Miguel Jr. (little Mikey).

Question: You believe Little Mikey should be given automatic U.S. Citizenship?

Answer: Yes, I believe that the parents should be sent back. If the parents, as his guardians, wish to renounce his American Citizenship, then he can go back with them. If not, then the baby can be made a ward of the state, placed for adoption and then raised by an American family.

[Timeout]

According to NRO's Byron York Huckabee has already flipped from the flop he leaked this morning:

Mike Huckabee just released this statement:

I do not support an amendment to the constitution that would prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens. I have no intention of supporting a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship.

Shezaaaam. This dude's spinnin' faster than those twisters over Little Rock this morning.

[jpsb]

LOL, that was quick! Guess the hypocrisy was too much even for the Huckster

[royhayward]

"Or more than likely, a sleeper agent that will work against U.S. interests for decades to come."

I think you have been reading too many spy novels. How do we know that this unborn child will become a "sleeper agent?" Seems pretty risky for the terrorist group, and kind of like an incredibly long plan. I mean this "agent" won't be effective for 14 to 18 years after his birth. And then odds are he won't be what you want anyway.

I don't think that guys who are willing to blow them selves up and or send others to blow up, will wait two decades to execute a plan.

I think that groups that are reduced to terrorism to achieve their goals will not have the patience or resources to conduct a "Sleeper Agent" program.

[calcowgirl]

I think you have been reading too many spy novels.

Nope. History books and working with national security folks for decades.

... kind of like an incredibly long plan. I mean this "agent" won't be effective for 14 to 18 years after his birth. And then odds are he won't be what you want anyway.

Ever hear of the KGB? Read up on the tactics used. Yes--an incredibly long, well organized, well controlled plan that required mega-U.S.-resources to counteract.

[calcowgirl]

Thanks. I’m actually stunned that some think U.S. Ccitizenship should be handed out so casually—and that the “state” should seize children and bear the responsibility to raise them or find homes for them, whether they have family or not.

[calcowgirl]

... gives birth to little Shawn hoping he will be their anchor into the New World. Who gets little Shawn when they’re deported and Shawn is declared an illegal?

Ireland.

What if Ireland doesn’t accept little Shawn back?

Show me any case where this has happened.

[dforest]

and that the “state” should seize children and bear the responsibility to raise them or find homes for them, whether they have family or not.

That notion, I don't know how to define, well that notion is absurd. Better to keep the kid with its parent and send them home.

I suppose the only argument that could be used is Elian Gonzales. He wasn't born here though, so no comparison could be made.

I am seeing some pretty left style politics around here today.

Had to check a couple times to make sure I was on FR.

[calcowgirl]

I am seeing some pretty left style politics around here today. Had to check a couple times to make sure I was on FR.

Me too!

[Fred]

Hucklebee is such a tool. He wants to give illegals all sorts of benefits and defends this position over and over, then, the tool says he is going to deny them citizenship. Hucklebee is Napolean reincarnated...

[ReignOfError]

that would be nice.....but getting an amendment thru to thwart the 14th now with so many fresh immigrants here voting along with liberals who love more and more immigrants (especially non white ones) who they suspect will vote left at least at first

all makes this highly unlikely

An amendment would certainly do the job, but you're right that it's unlikely. The Founders intentionally set the bar for amending the Constitution high. It takes a consensus, not a simple majority. And while there is a solid majority in favor of controlling the borders, there is no consensus on citizenship as a birthright.

The other tack is a matter of legal interpretation. The key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Some folks argue that someone born in the USA to two (e.g.) Mexican citizens is "subject to the jurisdiction of" -- i.e. beholden to and protected by -- Mexico, not the US. They are therefore not covered by that clause of the 14th amendment.

But that is not the prevailing interpretation. The 14th amendment was designed, in part, to override the Dred Scott decision -- a decision that had the convoluted reasonng that someone could be a citizen of one state but not of the United States. That someone could go from being a person to property and back again by simply crossing a state line.

The prevailing interpretation is that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American Indians, who reside within the boundaries of the United States but have their own nations. That 19th-century distinction is largely moot today, because American Indians on reservations have been US citizens since the 1920s.

The interpretation that upholds birthright citizenship has been upheld by the courts for over a century. For the most part, courts are loath to overturn long-standing precedent -- the principle is called "stare decisis," literally "let it stand." So that legal argument is unlikely to prevail absent some sort of specific legislation. Maybe not even then.

[unspun]

He thinks we are THAT STUPID and that his record is going to disappear down a worm hole.

No, he is a firm conservative, Republican who is also a Christian and thus able to "repent" (which means turn -- to the truth).

Thanks for posting this. What a stance -- way to go, Gov. Mike.

[dforest]

He is havin more ways than a Burger King.

Huckaburger King “Have it Anyway that Works”

[3AngelaD]

I have no doubt about the sincerity of his religious beliefs. But if he is a conservative, I am the Queen of Romania and you all are my subjects!

[unspun]

But if he is a conservative, I am the Queen of Romania and you all are my subjects!

Cutting through the chaff, Huckabee's Arkansas record is quite similar to Reagan's California record.