Comments on: Huckabee Would Abolish Birthright Citizenship

By: Arden

Arden — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:20:42 +0000

IT’s a myth that the 14th Amendment says that “if you were born in the US, you’re a citizen.” It actually says “if you were born in the US, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof” you are a citizen. Big difference. Read the congressional globe of the 39th congress and you will see quote after quote after quote, explaining precisely what they meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” it means COMPLETE jurisdiction–as in citizenship. If it meant everybody born in the territory (partial jurisdiction by virtue of mere presence), then Native Americans born in the US were all citizens by virtue of the 14th, same as freed slaves born in the US. But they weren’t. It wasn’t until an act of congress in 1924 that ALL native Americans were made citizens. The reason they did not meet the 2nd qualifier was ALLEGIANCE. they owed allegiance to another sovereign (their tribe). Or, more accurately, their parents owed allegiance to another sovereign, therefore the child was not a citizen unless the parent had already been naturalized. It’s plain as day in the Congressional record, and SCOTUS respected that meaning for 30 years before an “activist judge” decided he wanted to make it mean something else. Even if you accept that bogus ruling, it still is yet another huge leap to claim that an illegal alien with no domicile in the US can give birth to an automatic US citizen. All the Wong Kim Ark case was rule that the US born child of lawfully and permanently domiciled immigrants was a citizen at birth. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of someone illegally present, only assumed it in non-binding dicta.

By: Vasos Panagiotopoulos

Vasos Panagiotopoulos — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:21:51 +0000

Birthright citisenship is in the 14th Amendment. And dual citisenship
is by treaty (about seven countries). Here’s an approach that would work:

For all the problems with illegal immigration, I fear Green-carders
more. Illegal immigrants WANT to be here. Green-carders think it is beneath
them to apply for citisenship and look at becoming American with disdain. Yet
they stay for decades and never learn the language. That attitude of disdain
harbors terrorists more than illegals and it is the Green-carders who set up
and maintain anti-assimilationist institutions. The jet plane and the
satellite dish have changed the old paradigm of assimilation. I believe
Green Cards should be limited to seven years, unrenewably and require an
English test. It is ironic that this suggestion, what I see as “moderate”
reform, seems lost in the fog of the opposing extremes. But if you look at
how Giuliani’s policing quality-of-life crimes reduced crime overall (because
they guy who littered also committed other crimes), you should suspect
Green-card reform would solve more problems in the long run. Don’t think the
old granma housing illegals and teaching them to hate America is really as
harmless as she looks; Without her, the terrorists would be homeless and
perhaps uninspired and she is sneaking hate fliers into the prayerbooks in
the guise of cleaning them.

Then think of something else: is one Kerry/Blue voter worth two Bush/Red
voters? Well, congressional reapportionment doesn’t just count citisens, it
also counts legal and illegal aliens. THey may not vote, but they are used
to weight the legislative vote. In fact, urban political machines play this
up by setting up unelected “neighborhood” organisations to herd immigrants,
delay their assimilation, but keep them vocal enough to frighten
conservatives into inaction. Lincoln objected that slave states could count
non-voting slaves as 3/5 a person to up their census count for
reapportionment. Well, today, illegal aliens count in the census for
reapportionment. The LiverHole DumbOClucks, ever since Andrew Jackson, have
been wise to this. This is why they fund “neighborhood action” groups for
every ethnic minority, to keep them from learning English, from becoming
citisens, from assimilating, from straying too far, but most importantly from
VOTING. See, if they become Americans, they just might have a mind of their
own and vote the rascals out.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:22:29 +0000

Huckabee is the only candidate that come close to apparant authenticity with the exception of Mr. Obama. However As a Republican, I can only hope Iowa and New Hampshire shine a good light on Mr. Huckabees obvious leadership skills. We need a President who can communicate his/her ideas, clearly and frequently so that even the casual observer has a clear understanding of the real direction of the country and they won’t fall prey to simplistic media stories about any particular issue.

By: The Right’s Field » Charmed: The Huckabee Spell

The Right’s Field » Charmed: The Huckabee Spell — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:45:26 +0000

[...] to birthright citizenship; and when we say “changes,” we’re talking the abolishment of birthright citizenship. Huckabee claims that “most” of the Founding Fathers were “clergymen,” [...]

By: For President Info » Blog Archive » ? for President?

For President Info » Blog Archive » ? for President? — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:36:08 +0000

[...] The Right's Field: “Soren Dayton observes that Mike Huckabee seems to have flip-flopped on immigration. Whereas at one time Huckabee endorsed comprehensive immigration reform and said that opposition to such reform was 'driven by just sheer racism,' now he has indicated that he would abolish a core American principle: birthright citizenship. [...]

By: Gator Country

Gator Country — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:10:50 +0000

ROFLOL!!! What is with these candidates and their pandering. Only the Court can do decide this not the President. Do some of our candidates need a lesson in Government 101?

Huckabee came in 2nd in a straw poll that Fair Tax bought for him and all if a sudden he can do anything he wants as President? He needs a reality check.