Here comes the "Huckabee Amendment"

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 11:03am

"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 Washington Times

[scamp3]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 11:12am

He's a scary guy.
I don't like make predictions (because I'm usually wrong) but I really don't see him going too much farther. His economic policy is non-existent. And what he does propose is simply not feasible in reality.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 11:20am

Joe,

There is actually some ambiguity on whether or not children born here when parents are in the country illegal were intended to be covered by the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment.

It is an interesting legal discussion on what "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States" really means.

Some of the commentary when the 14th amendment passed seemed to indicate that it was not intended to apply to foreigners, ambassadors, and others who were loyal to another country.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 11:30am

There is also some ambiguity whether the Income Tax is legal- or so some people say. All I can say is that if somehow the current policy was overturned- say by an acid-tripping supreme court- there would be Hundreds of thousands- nay, MILLIONS of people who suddenly lose their citizenship. And if you extend it back generations to the date of the amendement- why, who knows how many multi-millions of people would suddenly be disenfranchised. The outcome of every single election would be justifiably challenged- were those voters actually citizens? It would be chaos.
Updated On: 1/8/08 at 11:30 AM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 12:18pm

Joe, I don't think you could apply the change in the law's interpretation retroactively.

If anything, the change would only apply on a prospective basis.

And, I am actually a bit divided on the issue. I am torn on the logic of letting people who are born to parents here illegally becoming automatic citizens.

I can see both sides of this argument. But, I cannot see retroactively apply any change in interpretation.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 12:26pm

Huck is ahead in South Carolina.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 12:27pm

YWIW I'd assume any new amendment would be forward looking, changing the policy going forth. But the Supreme Court can only hear arguments on behalf of an aggrieved party to right wrongs previously committed- If they ruled that Children born to non-citizen parents were NOT citizens it would have to refer to all those children; that's why they will NEVER rule that way.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 12:46pm

Joe,

I just cannot see the court taking away citizenship, once granted, based upon a change in the interpretation of the 14th amendment.

And, realistically, I cannot see the court following the more narrow interpretation.

I just wanted to point out that the position is not as extreme as it may first appear.

[javero]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 12:48pm

Interesting!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 12:50pm

not a whole lot the supremes can do about a 28th amendment if it managed to get ratified.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:00pm

Papa, the question I raised was whether there was a basis to challenge the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

You are right, a new amendment specifically restricting citizenship would be difficult to challenge.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:05pm

Craig or Mods - Can you delete HD's homophobic post? Thanks in advance .

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:08pm

i think that calling his post hate speech is a bit of a stretch, but in the kinder gentler new world of bww, i'm sure the thought police will clarify things for us. i am not gonna last long in this new era of enlightenment.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:14pm

How's this for a kick in the pants:

I'm actually for an amendment like this. I don't think a person who is in this country illegally should be able to drop a kid and then ask for our countries help in raising it.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:15pm

this thread should get rather interesting.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:17pm

That's just my opinion.

Illegal means ONE THING to me. Illegal.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:27pm

Diva I live in in a pretty upscale, conservative suburb. There has been a fairly recent influx of aliens- legal, illegal, who knows. While I understand the argument of "Illegal" it's hard to see the rage and hatred towards people who just happened to be born in the wrong place. My Great grandparents all came from various 'old countries' and frankly, I have no idea if they did so legally or illegally- and it's hard to get to the bottom of it. I know on my mother's side I had relatives who came from Europe to Canada, then moved into the US. I've had some people say that usually indicates that they weren't eligible for legal US immigration. In some families, there are stories of "When Grandpa became a citizen" or treasured relics of Green Cards. Not mine. No one really knows how they came to be here.

So who am I to oppose someone else's attempt to build a better life? And didn't immigrants make this place possible?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:31pm

My grandparents were also immigrants. They didn't expect the USA to pick up the dime for their kids.

There's a right/legal way to enter the country. Why break those rules for the people who can't follow them?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:38pm

They didn't expect the US to pick up the dime for their kids? So they didn't go to public schools? Or drive on the roads? Or call a policeman or an ambulance? In my neck of the woods, there is this pervasive, unassailable belief that somehow illegal immigrants get free medical care, welfare, and housing. I really know don't know where that comes from.

I actually can see people not wanting to allow illegal immigrants to attend public schools- but on the other hand, we are all much better off with educated residents, no matter their status. It's also the easiest way for those immigrants to learn to speak English.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:40pm

There is a distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

I tend to agree with Diva on this one.

And, just because things were done a certain way in the past, does not mean that they must continue that way in perpetuity.

I have friends who are children of illegal immigrants. And, even with some of them, the issue is murky.

The whole issue of "anchor babies" - which is what the situation is often referred to here in SoCal, is a difficult one.

[Calvin]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:41pm

Wow...Huckabee's aping Ron Paul now?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:44pm

And, what about the parents of these kids? Why isn't the government asking them to become legal citizens? They want the best for their kids, so they have them here, and then most of the parents don’t even bother to apply for citizenship.


That should be a priority.

If the US of A is good enough for their kids, why is it not good enough for them?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:53pm

wow, i guess that clears it up. agreeing with huckabee will get ya suspended. glad i got off the bandwagon early.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:55pm

Are my days numbered now, because I agree with a (shudder) Republican on this?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:57pm

that and your penchant for tossing santorum at posters deemed to be morons, diva.