Huckabee vows to defy birthright citizenship

Washington Times ^ | January 8, 2008 | Stephen Dinan

[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....

[3AngelaD]

As Your Queen, I command that you drink more Kool-aid.

[Paleo Conservative]

So your opposition to birthright citizenship is because you think Muslim terrorists will illegally enter the country, give birth, sneak back to Pakistan, and raise their terrorist baby with US citizenship.

There was a Saudi held in Guantanmo who claimed US citizenship because he was born in the US while his father was stationed in the US while undergoing military training. After his parents moved back to Saudi Arabia, he never set foot in the US. I really don't see why such a person should be considered a US citizen. You obviously have a totally ahistorical misunderstanding about the 14th amendment. You probably are not aware that the children of foreign diplomats who are born in the US while their parents are stationed in the US are not US citizens by birth.

Imagine if the children of diplomats born in the US were considered US citizens. During the Cold War, the USSR would have stationed as many diplomats of child bearing age in the US just so their children could have dual US citizenship enabling them to travel freely throughout the US and get US passports. It would been a fantastic way for the KGB to infiltrate the US. Al Qaeda would love to be able to infiltrate the US with people who could travel on US passports but have no allegience to the US. As far as I'm concerned the children born to foreigners in the US should only be "natural born" US citizens if they have immigrant visas. That would exclude the children of all illegal aliens, students on student visas, and tourists.

[ReignOfError]

The problem of anchor babies can be solved by mere legislation, since the 14th Amendment in its last clause gives Congress power to carry out the Amendment by passing "appropriate legislation."

"Appropriate" is the sticky part. "Congress shall have the power ... appropriate legislation" is pretty much boilerplate for an amendment. If, in the view of the courts, a piece of "mere legislation" is directly contradictory to the amendment, it is inappropriate.

Please see my analysis at post #116; I am not a lawyer, though I have a poli sci degree and consider myself well-read on legal issues for a layman. If I'm wrong, I'll accept correction; and if opinions differ, I welcome the debate. We're getting into pretty fine points of interpretation here. Not quite Talmudic, but close enough to smell the blintzes.

For now, my opinion is that the philosophical question is not at all clear, How the courts will respond to those arguments, even less so. The best way to clarify the argument would be to adopt a sharp, clear, black-letter constitutional amendment, but I do not think that is politically feasible.

[Bob]

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

Since Elian came from Cuba, his status falls under a different law. I don't think Cuban refugees get automatic citizenship, although I believe that they can apply for citizenship.

[kidd]

Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens

Really? Its interesting how seniments change. Let's check the FreeperFiles:

(8/4/2005) Gov. Mike Huckabee on Wednesday called last week’s federal roundup of 119 illegal aliens in Clark County "terribly planned" and wondered if it was "done for headlines." "Very little thought was given to what would happen to the children, who are by the way American citizens," Huckabee said
(source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457156/posts)

[3AngelaD]

They get automatic legal residency and cannot be deported, but have to go through the citizenship process like everyone else.

[Bob]

They get automatic legal residency and cannot be deported, but have to go through the citizenship process like everyone else.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought that might be the case but couldn't be sure on the details.

[Congressman Billybob]

The very case you cite, undercuts your argument. In reaching its interpretation about children born in the US, the Court noted that Congress had not acted on this matter, as yet. Couple that with the fact that Congress has, by law, defined US land as being “outside” the US (the Inland Ports) and children of foreign diplomats as not “born in the US,” it’s pretty clear that Congress CAN solve this problem by legislation.

John / Billybob

[org.whodat]

Second hand gossip, I would not believe Huck if he was on top of a stack of bibles as high as the empire state building.

[ReignOfError]

A close reading of the Constitution on citizenship can be read to say one or both parents of the child born here should be a US Citizen or legal permanent resident.

It certainly could be read that way. The relevant question is whether five of the nine will read it that way.

Of course, any passed law has to get by the Supremes and the make up of the court will be affected by who is president after 2008. Several on the court are getting on in years and may retire or die in the foreseeable future.

Ain't that easy. A strict constructionist believes that the Constitution means what it says, no more and no less. An originalist believes that the Constitution means what the Framers thought it meant. They often agree, but they aren't the same thing. While a strict constructionist and an originalist may agree that Roe was poorly decided, they might differ on the interpretation of what the framers of the 14th meant and why they said it in the way they did.

Any judge worth his gavel works forward from a philosophical position on the nature of law, not backward from a desired outcome. Judges have political opinions; they're humans and citizens like the rest of us, after all. But the good ones move forward from principle. Even if you believe that a judge is "right-minded," it doesn't mean he'll come down on the side you'd prefer on a given question.

Law and politics are tied together, but they aren't Siamese twins. I, for one, would prefer judges who have the right legal philosophy, and who don't bend the law to their political preferences or preferred outcomes. The downside is that you can't predict with any precision how those judges will come down on the questions that matter to you. These arguments get pretty arcane and drill down to finer and finer points.

[Cyropaedia]

The Supreme Court needs to re-assert its Elk vs. Wilkins ruling. Technically, Elk was never actually overturned. Elk said that birthright citizenship only applied to those individuals that fell completely within the jurisdiction of the United States, and owing it direct and immediate allegiance. In Elk, the SC predicated its decision on the intentions of those that drafted 14th Amendment.

The Wong decision was really predicated on old English Common Law. Elk took the more relevant issues into consideration.

[Lions Gate]

Is Huckabee doing this for political expediency or because it is the right thing to do?

Why was he so weak on illegal immigration when he was the Governor of Arkansas? How could we trust him to do the right thing now?

Thompson/Hunter in 2008!

[Ron H.]

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

There's more to come from Gov. Huskster I'm sure. He has to get up each morning and suck on his finger and thrust it hign into the air so he knows what direction to go for that day and hope the winds don't shift on him too dramatically.

[ReignOfError]

The very case you cite, undercuts your argument. In reaching its interpretation about children born in the US, the Court noted that Congress had not acted on this matter, as yet.

And, as yet, it still hasn't. A hundred-year-old precedent is more difficult to overturn than a new one.

Couple that with the fact that Congress has, by law, defined US land as being “outside” the US (the Inland Ports) and children of foreign diplomats as not “born in the US,”

I'm not familiar with the inland ports case. Please enlighten. In the case of foreign diplomats, they are immune by treaty and are in not in nearly any sense "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Plus, if they're born on embassy grounds, they're not born in the US. Embassies and consulates, in legal terms, are the sovereign territory of the countries that maintain them, not the countries in which they reside.

It's a valid observation, but it's not on point.

it’s pretty clear that Congress CAN solve this problem by legislation.

I disagree that it's "pretty clear." There is a decent case for it, but no firm precedent. Few precedents are struck down after standing a hundred years with little challenge and no effort to amend the constitution to strike them down.

[Congressman Billybob]

A precedent that says "Congress may act" is helpful, not hurtful, regardless of how old it is. It doesn't have to be overturned. It only has to be used in its own terms. And, "inland ports" are areas, such as in West Virginia, far from blue water, which are defined by law as being "not in the US" for the purposes of import-ecport and excise tax laws.

You keep assuming that the precedent "has to be overturned." It doesn't. It's not a barrier, it is a boost.

John / Billybob

[unspun]

Why was he so weak on illegal immigration when he was the Governor of Arkansas? How could we trust him to do the right thing now?

Huckabee was acting in Arkansas against legislation that viewed as very redundant. Also, I want a President who is willing to learn and grow.

[rmlew]

ACtually, Hunter and Paul undestand tah the 14th Ammendment does not mandate the children of Illegals be made citizens.
Even when lying and pretending to be conservatives, the Huckster proves his ignorance.

[tortdog]

You know, I don’t like Huckabee mainly because of his attacks on my religion, but it’s over the top to start calling him a liar.

We don’t need that during the nominating process.

[rmlew]

OK. Huckabee isn't a liar. He just holds diverging positions at the same time, spins them in public, and keep making popular conversions right before the elections or primaries.
But we shouldn't think ill of him, or question his integrity like he questioned those of others. (sarcasm)

[wardaddy]

thanks...i wondered about that language but was ignorant...to be honest