Is Ron Paul Confused on the 14th Amendment?
The major issue that has been bothering me about Ron Paul's campaign is his stance against illegal aliens gaining birth right citizenship. On his webiste at ronpaul2008.com he states: "End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong."
As we all know, Ron Paul considers himself a strict Constitutionalist. He claims that he does not vote for or against legistation unless it is expressly stated in the Constitution. In the 14th Amendment, Part 1 states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
If it's the welfare state (with all the programs and departments that feed it) that Ron Paul wants to reduce and end, then that is consistent with the Constitution and the ideology of individual liberty. But I find myself questioning this hypocritical stance on abolishing birth right citizenship when it is expressly stated in the 14th Amendment. If Ron Paul truly supports the Constitution, then picking and choosing parts he wants to ignore makes him look like a hypocite.
14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship
I'm sure it has already been covered here but I don't have time to read through the pages of posts to find out but I'll keep it short: Ron Paul has total respect for The Constitution so, if you will carefully examine the record, when Dr. Paul covers, in depth, NOT during the 30 seconds given him in a debate, when he covers this issue of Birthright Citizenship he does NOT speak of just ignoring The Constitution and eliminating Birthright Citizenship as our current President would do things, Dr. Paul speaks of AMENDING The Constitution, not violating it.
JG
The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle;
pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and
worship without sacrifice: Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandi
The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle;
pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and
worship without sacrifice: Mahatma Mohandas K. Gan
14th amendment
If you really want to get technical the 14th amendment was adopted for the people that were enslaved by this country to protect their rights so they would not be sent back to where ever they came from thus giving them birth right citizenship, so in other words the ILLEGAL immigrants are not enslaved by this country and have NO LEGAL RIGHTS!!
Give Me Freedom
Give Me Freedom
If Tyranny And Oppression Come To This Land, It Will Be In The
Guise Of Fighting A Foreign Enemy. James Madison
If We Have Racism We Will Not Have Freedom.
If We Have No Racism We Can Have Freedom
Quoted By: GIVE ME FREEDOM
Rights do not come from Government
Ok, lets get technical. The original Constitution clearly had it's problems, with the most glaring of defining and codifying racial slavery into law and practice. The 13th, 14th 15th, and 19th Amendments set out to reverse this terrible precedent and go further in the cause of individual liberty by defining individuals as more than a free, white, land owning males. I persoanlly think these amendments were positive additions by recognizing the philosophic roots of the Constitution and that people's rights do not come from government, but pre-exist government. With its problems of slavery, the original Constitution's PRIMARY mandate and role is to protect individual rights of life, liberty and property.
When you say immigrants have "no legal rights", this could not be further from the truth. I firmly believe that all individual rights are inaliable, natural extensions of being individuals, whether they are natural born citizens, immigrants, foriegners, or even "illegals". For me the amazing aspect of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was it was the first time in history that a government not just recognized this amazing principle, but had been created to protect the rights of individuals. The immigration issue boils down to the simple idea of people and their freedom to move. As freedom loving people, the choice is clear: do we want a pro-liberty, limited government approach to how we deal with immigration or do we resort to the collectivist, tired, old, big-governement, central planning solutions to handle (or more like mishandle) immigration? Here is an excellent article that may help to clarify this position:
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0705j.asp
I would estimate that about 90% of Ron Paul's position's reflect this sentiment of protecting individuals rights, and that is why he has my support. My main disagreement though is his position on immigration where both philosophically and practically he defers to collectivist, anti-liberty thinking and big government solutions. It is my hope that he and others reconsider this important issue.
morerice????
morerice
It is obvious that you did not read what I wrote so I will write it again.
I said that illegal immigrants do not have rights. You ask why i say that illegal immigrants have no right, here is the answer, they are criminals !!!!!
I am not against legal immigrants, because they came to this country LEGALLY, and they have rights not the illegals who flood across our southern border in droves.
Give Me Freedom
If Tyranny And Oppression Come To This Land, It Will Be In The
Guise Of Fighting A Foreign Enemy. James Madison
If We Have Racism We Will Not Have Freedom.
If We Have No Racism We Can Have Freedom
Quoted By: GIVE ME FREEDOM
Jive Dadson
Illegal immigrants do indeed have rights. For starters, they are not "illegal" until they have exhausted their right of habeas corpus, and have been indicted by a grand jury and convicted in a court of law. After they are proven illegal, they have rights banning cruel and unusual punishment.
If you will search the constitution, you will find that the word "citizen" occurs infrequently, often in the context of who is eligible for public office at the federal level. The Declaration spelled it out: All men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights. In other words, there are things that the US government may not legally do to ANYBODY.
Individual Rights
Yes I did read what you said, the first time. As I tried to explain (the first time I responded), the founding principles of this country are based on the idea that individual rights are UNALIENABLE and pre-exist governemnt, irregardless of whether these individuals are natural born citizens, immigrants, foriegners, criminals, enemy combatants, or even "illegals". So, following the pretext of the original philosophic underpinnings of what this country was founded on, when you say "illegal immigrants do not have rights" because they are "criminals", I think you are way, way off base. Additionally, I think it is your kind of dehumanizing logic that leads to policies of torture, repatriation, warrantless seaches and siezures, the suspension of Habeaus Corpus, and other anti-individual freedom policies. And I'm sure these are not policies you promote outright, right?
Shame on you!
How dare you impugn the intelligence and humanity of those who have posted here by implying that we do not uphold the common rights of all human beings (particularly when my posts and many others have clearly stated the opposite).
There is a big difference between the right to humane treatment and citizenship. How can the right to citizenship pre-exist government? There is no right to citizenship of any country without first obeying their laws.
Neo-Con ideas of taking from the many to benefit the few and the Liberal ideas of taking from the few to benefit the many are the reasons for the deterioration of not just ours but all human rights. It is not the result of obeying the law.
If we continue with your ideas expressed here and elsewhere, we might as well throw open our borders, join the NAU and stop pretending that we care about our human rights and sovereignty as a nation. We are either a nation of laws or we will not be a nation for much longer.
Your arguments are trite, tedious, illogical, dangerous to our unalienable right and an insult to us all.
Again, shame on you!
Anti-Stupid
Right You Are Anti-Stupid
I agree whole-heartedly with your post here.
We have to remember that we are a nation of states ruled, not by a president and congress, but by laws that have been implemented by the people through the congress (well, that is what is supposed to happen).
The Truth Hurts
All I am doing is pointing out the philosophic inconsistencies of how the policies advocated by Ron Paul on immigration are anathema to just about every other of his pro-freedom ideas. Also, I strongly believe this inconsistency on his immigration policies are a huge turn off to many, MANY people.
Instead of challenging my pro-freedom ideas, you now resort to adhominim attacks or claiming I say things that I do not. This is showing some of the true colors about those that hide behind freedom with anti-freedom logic.
First, please tell me where I once advocate joining the NAU, WTO, NAFTA, or CAFTA? I am stanchly opposed to all these.
Second, please tell me where I once advocated eliminating or even reducing our sovereignty as a nation? Again, I am stanchly opposed to this.
Third, to clarify, I see open borders the same way I see borders between the different states. People are free to travel, trade and relocate around the 50 states without any permissions or permits from any government officials. The states certainly do not lose their sovereignty by having complete open and transparent borders with other states. Why is it so difficult for those who advocate individual freedom to see that the Federal borders would (and should) be the same where individuals can come and go and trade as they please without permissions from government officials? Or to show the opposite, why are so many that advocate individual freedom so quick to rush to collectivist, big government, dehumaizing solutions to control immigration? I should not have to explain to this group that big goverment solutions only exacerbate the problems they proport to fix, create a mriad of unintended negative consequences, and eventually erode our individual liberties.
You said:
"Neo-Con ideas of taking from the many to benefit the few and the Liberal ideas of taking from the few to benefit the many are the reasons for the deterioration of not just ours but all human rights."
I COULD NOT AGREE MORE!!! I believe the current problems with immigration stem ENTIRELY from the warfare welfare policies that have guided our Federal government for the last 100 years. Get rid of the welfare warfare policies and the immigration problems magically disappear.
Then there is the attitude we should have for immigrants. I will end with the wisdom of the short poem on the bottom of the Statute of Liberty by Emma Lazurus, written in 1883:
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" To me, this is the true immigration policy of a nation that calls itself free.
Hold on...
"Third, to clarify, I see open borders the same way I see borders between the different states. People are free to travel, trade and relocate around the 50 states without any permissions or permits from any government officials. The states certainly do not lose their sovereignty by having complete open and transparent borders with other states. Why is it so difficult for those who advocate individual freedom to see that the Federal borders would (and should) be the same where individuals can come and go and trade as they please without permissions from government officials?"
Because I don't get health care or money when I visit New Jersey! Someone here (illegally) to abuse our social programs doesn't need to cross state lines. Additionally, the states take the brunt of this type of expense. How many hospitals in the border states have had to close down due to this problem? Is that fair to the legal residents of those communities?
Free to Travel?
I’d like to expand on your comments concerning the 3rd premise above. We are not “free to travel or relocate to another state without permission or permits from any government officialsâ€, commercially or otherwise.
Yes you can travel between the states, but don’t get caught driving without your state’s drivers license. Show your state’s license and you will only be “finedâ€, don’t show you state’s DL and you will be arrested. Yes you are free to locate to another state but you will have 30 days to register your DL. Of course you are free not to register, if you don’t intend to drive anywhere, open a bank account, or even cash a check. And as far as commercial travel across state lines, it is one of the most regulated activities you can engage in.
I don’t mean to be argumentative here, but let’s not be naive about our ever dwindling freedoms in this country.
Best Regards,
Anti-Stupid
Its the Welfare
Again, its the Federally mandated free hospital care that is the biggest incentive, NOT the birth right citizenship. So again, if we can eliminate the welfare programs, the incentives for immigrants to abuse our systems will magically disappear. I think this is one of Ron Paul's strongest points of recognizing that incentives attract people to act, and then his weakest point when he incorrectly attributes birth right citizenship as a major incentive for immigrants to come here.
What Truth?
I agree with you as to the reasons why illegal immigration is such a problem but rewarding it with birth right citizenship is not the answer. And that’s the whole point, it's the problem. Ron Paul is not inconsistent with his stance on illegal immigration or birth right citizenship. I’ve already given you the civil (contract) and criminal law for determining the proper action. It is the liberal interpretation to disregard the law that is inconsistent.
Liberal ideas, as charitable as they may seem, that do not respect the rights of those who have to pay the bill will lead to the continual erosion of our individual rights and our sovereignty as a national. The end results will be just as I stated above. So if you are not for those things, then respect the rule of law and recognize that we simply can not give in to the theft of our resources whether by government or by other individuals.
Your description of the words on the Statue of Liberty, while certainly stirring, does not mean “sneak across our borders and take advantage of our peopleâ€. It means that all people are welcome to enter; just follow our laws and legal processes to do so. Sign in and declare yourself please!
If I want to enter your home, do I knock and ask for permission or do I just break in. If a person breaks into your home then just happens to have a child while there and you are now told it is your responsibility to not only take care of the child but the mother as well; whose rights are being violated theirs or yours?
If you don’t think of this country as your home and protect it as such, it will soon be controlled by someone else and we are on that path now.
I personally would like to see a compassionate liberal immigration policy for all people who want to actually become citizens and productive members of our society. Then even birth right citizenship is fine with me. I say make it easy as practical to become an American. But I do not believe that the current situation is based on wanting to be an American as much as it is to take advantage of our resources. It should not be permitted and certainly not rewarded.
I am not unsympathetic to women who don’t have access to proper medical care. If we really want to help them there are voluntary charitable organization and hospitals to give them that help. Unfortunately many who come here do it simply to get free welfare through birth right citizenship that forces the American people to foot the bill for years to come. It has to stop.
Anti-Stupid
We Mostly Agree, Except...
It seems we mostly agree on just about everything:
-a strong national sovernty
-that following the Constitution is paramount
-that all people, irregardless of citizenship, have natural, unalienable rights
-that we promote pro-individual freedom policies
-that we promote against anti-individual freedom policies
-that the welfare is a powerful incentive for immigrants (and non-immigrants too)
It seems where we disagree is that you (and Ron Paul) think birth-right citizenship is the main incentive (and hence the problem) for poor, pregnant immigrants, and I think its the free medical care that is by far the biggest incentive for poor, pregnant immigrants.
My question to you is what did citezenship get you back in 1868 that is different today? Answer: it's the welfare. As advocates of liberty, I think we should concentrate our efforts entirely on ending the welfare warfare polices that are destroying this country. I firmly believe that fighting to change the birth-right issue by requiring a new Constitutional amendment is not a wise approach, both philosophically AND practically.
I always like to imagine
I always like to imagine what would happen if Mexico somehow got rid of a few thousand Mexican laws and regulations and instituted a much smaller Mexican government. They'd probably have to build a fence to keep ME out of Mexico, which is a lovely, resource-rich country full of fun stuff to do.
JMR
With All Due Respect
I must reply here due to a pet peev of mine.
It is not "inaliable" rights. It is not "inalienable" rights. IT IS...UNALIENABLE.
The legal definition of "LIEN" is the legal claim of one person upon the property of another person to secure the payment of a debt or the satisfaction of an obligation.
Therefore, the definition of "LIENABLE" is the ability of one person to make the legal claim upon the property of another person to secure the payment of a debt or the satisfaction of an obligation.
The definition of "ALIENABLE" is capable of being sold or transferred.
Finally we reach what the meaning and intent of the word "UNALIENABLE" when used in the Declaration of Independence.
"UNALIENABLE" means: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Please folks, allow me some latitude here with this pet peeve. I do not mean to be condescending, but instead, I wish to inform you for your future benefit. Please, take this information to heart. The above is what was written and what was meant by our founding father's with regard to our Rights as declared in that wonderful document.
Fully Agree
Unalienable it is!
Importance of words
Hello imheretoo, (you certainly are). Thank you for reminding us of the difference between inalienable and unalienable. I actually knew the difference but forgot which was which. I am guilty of being too lazy to go look it up again when I knew I didn’t remember, (it is hell to get old). I’ll bet Dr. Paul who is older than most of us would not have made such a mental mistake.
Thanks again
Anti-Stupid
Residing Issue
Here is the problem; people who do not RESIDE in the United States are having babies here so the babies will automatically be citizens.
I talked with a Muslim friend of mine the other day about this, and he told me he knows of many Middle Eastern women who travel here for the sole purpose of having their babies in America, getting automatic citizenship, then they travel back home. That is a perversion of this law, and we ought to put a stop to it.
The 14th Amendment was originally passed to keep people from claiming that children born to former slaves (people who legally lived and worked in the U.S.), were not citizens. It was not intended to let people on vacation, or people who walked across the border, have infant citizens.
Hypocritical?
There is nothing hypocritical or inconsistent in respecting the Constitution as the supreme law of the United States and recommending a change through the amendment process.
Ron Paul would like to amend the 14th Amendment.
His change would have citizenship occur at birth only when either parent is either a citizen or a "person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States."
(That last bit seems both vague and rather demanding of state loyalty. He didn't make up the phrase, at least. A little googling reveals that the phrase is associated with non-citizen U.S. nationals—essentially those born in American Samoa or Swains Island, and their children.)
Incidentally, most of the world has some sort of requirement for citizenship by birth. Birthright citizenship, or jus soli, hardly exists outside the New World. The UK and India used to have it, but each added similar requirements during the 1980s. Apparently, Pakistan, that lighthouse of liberty, still has it.
I believe Ron Paul would do well before the cameras to express what he wants to do here in a positive sense. Something better than "end birthright citizenship"—which is scary sounding to those of us who aren't preoccupied with Mexicans. We naturally think of ourselves and our families first, and may imagine this somehow threatening our existing rights. How many, I wonder, think next of Starship Troopers?
I haven't been feeling illegal immigration as a serious issue for me, yet, I suppose. Personally, though, I still haven't been a big fan of the 14th Amendment: I don't believe, that previous to the Civil War amendments, there had been anything in the Constitution that had described us as subject.
Thanks morerice
Thanks for not being a mindless follower. I also have some concerns about this issue, not so much from a Constitutional standpoint, but from a philosophic one. Thanks for keeping us sharp & honest! YOU are exactly the kind of American that deserves leadership like Paul's!
"citizenship"
"From a philosophic one"— I believe I know what you mean. I suppose much hinges on what we take "citizenship" to mean or confer.
In a nation respects natural or inalienable rights, and if citizenship
is basically voting and eligibility to work for the federal government, perhaps it's not such a big deal.
If a people see rights as flowing from government or citizenship: big deal.
rEVOLution of LOVE
Hi All,
at the risk of being panned off as a "hippy" supporter...
This amazing political dialogue certainly resounds of intellectual prowess.
However, dissecting infinitessimally, every contentious issue (of which there are few) may begin to mask and overshadow the light and joy that Ron's campaign as a whole is intending to produce...
Let's get this man in first and then trust his honesty and integrity to logically and legally contest each point in a constitutional way...
I have never seen so many supporters avidly declare their love for a runner before (male or female). Let's continue the rEVOLution in this manner.
"LOVE",
T
Why not?
Our love of the rEVOLution is what brings us all here. We all love Dr. Paul's message and want to spread it. Since we all "trust his honesty and integrity to logically and legally contest each point in a constitutional way," it doesn't really matter what our individual opinions are.
The passionate, thoughtful, and respectful dialog shown here is what we've (as a society) forgotten how to do. We'll never all agree on every issue, but can certainly discuss them. I think RP would be proud.
14th Amendment confusion
US citizenship for newborns requires three things.
"1) All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
AND
2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
3)RESIDE."
A newborn must be born in the US, be a subject of the US, and reside in the US. What if a child born to an American mother or parents in a foreign country? Is that child a US citizen only because its parents are subjects of the US? Then children born to foreign citizens in the US are subjects of their parents' countries. Also, if the foreign parents are transient or visiting the US, rather than residing here, their child also does not qualify for citizenship because the family doesn't (3) reside here.
14th Amendment Simply Explained
I fully disagree with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Whether you agree or not with what it says, the 14th Amendment very clearly defines what makes a citizen. To show you in a simple breakdown, here is how it I (and the courts) see it read:
"1) All persons
a)born
b)or naturalized
2) in
a) the United States,
b) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
3) are citizens of
a) the United States
b) and of the State wherein they reside."
The language of the 14th Amendment to me is very clear: if you are born in the USA, you are a citizen. Period.
I think if you are going to argue the "idea" of birth right citizenship issue, you bring into question the entire meaning of citizenship and all it entails. Maybe this is a good thing, but I believe that there are far more pressing issues to embrace that are pro-liberty and limited-government, than to blame immigrants on this welfare warfare mess that over government has become. Let's work to reduce and end the welfare warfare policies that are destroying this country.
much truth there...
Dr. Paul has been a strong advocate of ending the backwards policy of being a "welfare state"....if this is in fact carried out it may ease some of the pressure possibly....not accounting for our neighbor having population growth that it cannot seem to supply gainful employment...In addition the "problem" should be effictively eliminated if in fact our Federal Gov. lives up to its responsibility to protect us from foreign (and ILLEGAL) invasion which would primarily then only leave this window then for "planned" tourism intended for planned birthing the only open window for abuse.
give me liberty or give me death
Confusion indeed
The problem is that this has been interpreted in such a way as to grant automatic citizenship to newborns (who are of course incapable of taking a citizenship test) whose parents are not citizens, in fact in the country illegally.
Then the baby, as a "citizen", has a "right" to remain in this country, and of course we can't separate a child from es parents (that would be uncompassionate), so the parents stay too. And we have a large and growing population of people who are here by "right" without ever having to demonstrate that they in any way understand or care the least about what makes this country unique -- our once republican form of government, etc. -- what, indeed, made it the place of prosperity and opportunity that attracted them in the first place.
No other nation has such a suicidal immigration policy. No other nation allows such massive illegal immigration, then deliberately coddles them with every kind of social welfare, and even bends over backward to ensure that they never even have to learn the language of their "adopted" country -- allowing them to vote when they can't even read (much less understand) the documents that created the democratic system they are participating in. It's nuts -- but it's not an accident. And the American people who've fallen for this program are fools, who are willingly placing their own necks in chains. It would be hilarious, if it weren't so tragic.
What most Americans appear to have forgotten is that this country was meant to be different from other nations. It was meant to be a country in which the people hold the power, and govern themselves. For such an idea to work, the people must be responsible and educated; they must understand the nature of the experiment they're engaged in, and willing to do the work needed to make it work. "Freedom is not free."
To be a part of such an endeavor is something that must be earned. That is why aspirants for citizenship are (or once were) required at least to learn the language in which the founding documents of this Republic are written, and to demonstrate that they have at least a rudimentary understanding of what those documents mean. This is not because we Americans want to be meanies; it is because the experiment will fail (as indeed it is failing) if the citizenry grows ignorant and lazy.
A hundred years ago, immigrants to America had at least some understanding that the differences between this country and where they were coming from were more than merely economic, and not accidental; for the most part they wanted to learn the language and participate fully. Not so any more; now immigrants claim the "right" to not learn English, to take advantage of social welfare programs of all kinds, to remain in ghettos of their own culture/nationality and refuse to take part in any way. And expect American citizens to pay for all this. If this trend cannot be reversed, the American experiment in republican governance will come to an end, and we will all live as happy serfs on the worldwide plantation, doing our Masters' bidding.
Why are people so attached to this insane policy? Is it not the case that when a person legally becomes a naturalized citizen, any minor children of that person are automatically included? Thus the only reason to push for "birthright citizenship" is enable illegal immigrants to remain in the country, totally contrary to the spirit, if not the (present) letter, of our immigration laws. This is why I must question the motives (or the intelligence -- take your pick) of those on this forum who are making a big fuss about Ron Paul's desire to close this gigantic, disastrous loophole in our immigration laws. Laws with loopholes are bad laws. Laws with loopholes that will destroy our nation are calamities.
As for "subject to the jurisdiction", see "No, the 14th Amendment" below.
Missing the Boat
It appears to me that everyone is missing the boat on this one. The argument is simple, it is original intent. The Congressmen said at the time of the ratification, this does not apply to foreigners.
In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
My gun control is a steady hand.
He would also repeal the 16th Amendment!!!
Saying you're a Constitutionalist doesn't mean you agree with every single article or amendment. What about the 16th amendment and income tax? Ron acknowledges the document has problems, but he wants to return the philosophy of the founders. That involves changing old laws that have been practiced for almost a century. Let's not forget... this is OUR country, not the government's.