Posted on 01/08/2008 7:31:11 AM PST by 3AngelaD
Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens, according to his top immigration surrogate — a radical step no other major presidential candidate has embraced.
Mr. Huckabee, who won last week's Republican Iowa caucuses, promised Minuteman Project founder James Gilchrist that he would force a test case to the Supreme Court to challenge birthright citizenship, and would push Congress to pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to remove any doubt.
The former Arkansas governor thinks the case against U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean was railroaded, Mr. Gilchrist said. Ramos and Compean are serving lengthy prison sentences for shooting a fleeing drug-smuggling suspect in the buttocks....
Mr. Huckabee has defended his policies on illegal aliens while he was Arkansas governor. He pressed for illegal aliens to gain college tuition benefits, complained about federal immigration raids in his state and declined to have state police enforce immigration laws, although the state legislature gave him the authority to do so....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
He must be wearing a rut in that “road to Damascus”....
Yes he thinks we are that stupid, if he gets the nomination watch him flip/flop back.
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. ")
So now we have two flip-floppers.
I agree with you on birthright citizenship.
Citizenship should only be granted to people born here who have a parent/parents, who enter legally.
Mike Huckabee just released this statement:Shezaaaam. This dude's spinnin' faster than those twisters over Little Rock this morning.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.
LOL, that was quick! Guess the hypocrisy was too much even for the Huckster
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.
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.
Ireland.
What if Ireland doesn’t accept little Shawn back?
Show me any case where this has happened.
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.
Me too!
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.
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.
He is havin more ways than a Burger King.
Huckaburger King “Have it Anyway that Works”
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!
Cutting through the chaff, Huckabee's Arkansas record is quite similar to Reagan's California record.
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.