Huckabee on birthright citizenship
Anchor Babies…
Under current US law, if you drop a child on US soil (give birth to sheesh) that child, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the mother or father, is an American Citizen. By merit of birth alone, the family has now produced what is lovingly called… and Anchor Baby.
If you pay any attention to the illegal immigration debate, I’m sure you have heard the heart string plucking line about how evil those of us on the anti-illegal immigration debate are because we’re deporting the mothers of these poor children and destroying families.
Enter Mike Huckabee.
In a promise to the founder of the Minutemen Project who’s goal it is to enforce border laws the US doesn’t seem to want to touch, Huckabee said as President he would first run a test case through the Supreme Court followed by a constitutional amendment that would end birthright citizenship.
The guy just got the nod from me guys… the path to ending illegal immigration is through shutting off avenues they’re using to get her and by eliminating enticing “perks” currently in place. If you dry up jobs, housing and birthright citizenship they have 2 choices… sign up legally or go home. BOTH are acceptable choices to me.
Numerous candidates have pushed their cards out on the table over the last few months and it seems like everyone has at least one amnesty card in their hand. You CANNOT stop illegals if you reward the ones already here with ANYTHING. It doesn’t matter how many fines you charge them with, how many years you lock them up, or how many you send home (which is IMPOSSIBLE for the record), if the end result contains ANYTHING positive it is amnesty. Period.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
WHAT?!
You’re endorsing Tax Hike Mike?????
Dude…. Tear up your Conservative membership card. You’ve sold out.
Too bad it’s not true.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressRelease&ID=484
LITTLE ROCK, AR — Former Arkansas Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has issued the following comment in response to a Washington Times article reporting he would amend the Constitution in connection to children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens:
“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.”
Even if untrue, it’s still appalling that no one has challenged the 14th Amendment to this day.
The founder of HB1804 in Oklahoma is working up a challenge to the 14th Amendment in his next immigration bill set to build on the success of HB1804 so here’s hoping DC pulls their heads out of their nether regions soon.
Look. It’s populist movement. I personally believe the immigration debate is driven by the same hysteria that drives the debate around global warming, only it’s mixed with a strong dose of nationalism. No one looks at the benefit migrant workers bring to our economy.
Global warming is FAR from being motivated by nationalism sir, I would dare say it’s motivated by a sever hatred of capitalism and a lust towards global governance.
BTW, it’s ILLEGAL immigration, not immigration. I have ZERO problem with letting people in, but there’s a FRONT DOOR for a reason. The economic benefit is FAR exceeded by the economic hit illegals have on our economy. It costs the US taxpayers over $15 BILLION a year to provide welfare and health care for people who aren’t even citizens.
Hospitals are collapsing under the volume of illegals needing non emergent care and I’m supposed to believe that some dude picking strawberries because “I won’t” is a GOOD thing? PLEASE.
Global warming is motivated more out of hatred of capitalism than anything.
I was referring to nationalism in immigration, not global warming.
There was a study conducted in 2006 by the Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill which found that migrant workers contribute $9 billion to that state’s economy. That is just one state.
I agree that people should come in legally and they not go to the front of the line, but mass deportation is unrealistic. However, the hysteria that individuals such as yourself embrace could potentially cost American privacy through a national ID (such as the REAL ID Act).
The issue is easily demagogued. It’s sad to see people buy into the hysteria without paying due diligence to the facts.
James… Read that again. Jason did not say that Global Warming was driven by nationalism… He was applying that to immigration.
My question is…. If you don’t mind mexicans being here, then why do feel they should they ask for permission? And why must I ask for permission to hire them if I want to? Do you not believe in the principle of free association?
I reread that and I see where I made the error in association. My Bad, I was trying to post a response quickly on my lunch break.
Jason (no LJ), I have NEVER favored or even thought about mass deportation. It’s not possible so it shouldn’t even be on the table. The solution is to dry up the bait and shut the flood gates. If you remove incentives to flood the US, and you block the roads they’re taking to get here you’ve at least stemmed the tide long enough to deal with the ones who ARE here and that’s where we need to start.
If you leave your faucet on, sooner or later your sink is going to overflow. If you turn off the faucet and deal with the water in the sink then your problem is much smaller and easier to deal with. You’re not left mopping up a massive mess.
LJason… They are no different than a Canadian, French, Spanish, German, British,
Why shouldn’t you hire them? For the same reason you wouldn’t hide a serial killer in your garage when the police are out looking for them. Not because they’re dangerous, but because they are here illegally and you’re aiding and abetting a criminal by pretending it’s “ok”.
I believe you should be able to hire anyone for any job in this country… but I FIRMLY believe they need to be here LEGALLY first, be it through a work visa or as a citizen.
Do you have a fence on your property? A door? Or do you just let anyone come squat on your land?
Ok.. there are so many fallacies in your last post, its hard to know where to begin… Let me try this..
>> Why should we require the world to apply and let the Mexicans in the back door?
My point is why should ANYONE have to ask permission - Mexican, Canadian, French, German, or Swahilian - to excercise their fundamental, universal, natural human rights?
>> That, would be called EXPLOITATION and it’s WRONG.
It is most certainly NOT exploitation, unless you take a Marxist view of economics. In any voluntary transaction, each side gives up something they value less to gain something they value more. Its a win, win situation. The fact that these “illegals” are coming here should tell you that they are after something they cannot get back at home…opportunity… They work on the cheap because that is their competitive advantage. That’s capitalism 101, my friend.
>> Why shouldn’t you hire them? For the same reason you wouldn’t hide a serial killer in your garage when the police are out looking for them. Not because they’re dangerous, but because they are here illegally and you’re aiding and abetting a criminal by pretending it’s “ok”.
There is a categorical difference between a “serial killer” - who by definition is a violent offender of the natural rights of others - and an “economic criminal” such as an “illegal” immigrant who simply wishes to offer his services to a willing buyer. If its a crime for them to be here… you show me whose rights are being violated, and I will gladly declare you to have won this argument. But you can’t, unless you resort to phony “manufactured” rights that require positive obligations on others - (ie. the leftwing claim that healthcare and education and smoke-free work environments are “rights” exactly of this kind).
>> I believe you should be able to hire anyone for any job in this country… but I FIRMLY believe they need to be here LEGALLY first, be it through a work visa or as a citizen.
Right… You are “allowed” to hire anyone who the politicians have given their approval. Individuals have no inherent RIGHT to free association… to you, it’s a privelege granted by the State.
>> Do you have a fence on your property? A door? Or do you just let anyone come squat on your land?
This is a complete non-sequitur and a mischaracterization of the issue to boot… This statement assumes that the country is one large piece of property, collectively owned by “us” in the guise of the State. That is completely wrong. My property is MY PROPERTY, and I can exclude or invite anyone I damn well please….and if you don’t like it… tough! What you anti-immigrant crowdlings are really advocating is that MY property is not MY property… but OUR property.. and you would use the State to tell me that if I want to hire Jose or Miguel to come onto my property and perform a service we both mutually agree to, that I should face jail time and fines. Admit it, James… Your position is anti-private property.
My point is why should ANYONE have to ask permission - Mexican, Canadian, French, German, or Swahilian - to excercise their fundamental, universal, natural human rights?
Jason, THAT is why I hope people like you DON’T run our country, ever. I would love to hear how the US is supposed to BE the US without any borders.
The fact that these “illegals” are coming here should tell you that they are after something they cannot get back at home…opportunity
Precisely… so they go to the line marked US Immigration, and they immigrate to the land of opportunity and get a job for $2 an hour. Sneaking into my country in the dead of night is STILL illegal no matter how you look at it.
Individuals have no inherent RIGHT to free association…
There is a difference between free association and downright borderless anarchy. Sure we can eliminate all government, borders, security and on and on and on… but then where does that get us?
This statement assumes that the country is one large piece of property, collectively owned by “us”
Jason, there’s this oddly shaped piece of property smack dab in the middle of North America, and they call it the United States of America. It’s a sovereign nation, meaning it has borders, and laws. Eliminating that border and disregarding the rule of law, on which this country is founded on dissolves that sovereignty and makes us no different than a pack of wild animals.
I don’t think you SEE what you’re typing… You put a fence around your land to block out unauthorized access. You JUST acknowledged that in your micro rant right here…
I can exclude or invite anyone I damn well please….and if you don’t like it… tough!
How is THAT different from a sovereign nation dictating policy on who they will allow on their land. IT’S NOT.
You’re the ‘President’ of your property, and if you don’t want me to have access to it, you are 100% within your rights to get me off of it however you see fit.
I am not anti-private property but I refuse to give up my national sovereignty because a segment of the population feels it necessary to hand it over to the lowest bidder simply because it’s their natural right.
This whole “no borders” thing is were I don’t tread into Libertarianism. THAT is a Utopian dreamworld.
I am more beholden to the ideals that our Founders used to create the country, such as natural rights, individual liberty and private property, than the country itself.
Don’t get me wrong, I love where I live, but without those ideals…America loses it’s meaning.
Man I’ve been telling you for months how awesome this guy’s platform is.
I swear, no one listens to me…