Huckabee flip-flops on birthright citizenship.
Huckabee flip-flops on birthright citizenship.
Yesterday, the Washington Times reported that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee would “amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizen.” The paper relied on Minutemen founder James Gilchrist for its scoop, but Huckabee disputed the claim, saying he had “no intention” of denying the right of “birthright citizenship.” But the Times reports today that Huckabee told it in August that he “would support changing” birthright citizenship:
But he previously had taken a position in an interview with The Times on his campaign bus in Iowa in August.
“I would support changing that. I think there is reason to revisit that, just because a person, through sheer chance of geography, happened to be physically here at the point of birth, doesn’t necessarily constitute citizenship,” he said at the time, according to the audiotape of the interview. “I think that’s a very reasonable thing to do, to revisit that.”
Birthright citizenship is explicitly laid out in the 14th amendment, which begins, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Of course Huckabee would support it. That would mean that Romney would be denied citizenship because his father was an illegal alien.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:43 amAnd we expect someone like Huckafinn to understand amendment?? Especially all the way down to the 14th?? TOO much reading…needs to be 1 page or less…
January 9th, 2008 at 11:48 amIt ought to be completely OBVIOUS by now: Republicans will say ANYTHING in order to be elected.
They’re the biggest pimps and hoors on the planet.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:50 amBirthright citizenship is explicitly laid out in the 14th amendment, which begins, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.â€
Is this the same Constitution the Republicans have been trying to destroy, the same one Bush calls a “goddamned piece of paper!”?
Then it’s understandable the Huckster wants to violate it further. Its the Republican thing to do.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:51 amWhat part of ‘Born in the USA’ does Huckabuck not understand?
January 9th, 2008 at 11:53 amHuck’s Choice (and remember, death is not an option): A fervently religious illegal immigrant or a natural born US citizen who’s a devout Satanist.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:53 amDon’t you folks realize that only democratic folks can do the olde flip flop routine. the rePUGs told us that they don’t do that and of course they own the language as well.
No problem here, just keep moving along.
I sure would like to see Huck in the boat for the third time with a big hook in his mouth saying throw me back in the drainage ditch!
January 9th, 2008 at 11:56 amThat tells me he knows nothing about the Constitution – I wonder if any of his “handlers” has informed him that it is not within the President’s power to singlehandedly amend the Constitution? Whether or not the amendment goes through is still up to We The People. Oops!
January 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pmsee all things Huckabee:
http://debates.redlasso.com/dbt
January 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pmI may be very liberal on most all issues, but I am afraid I have to agree, the law should be changed. Sorry, just my view of the issue.
Buck Fush
January 9th, 2008 at 12:01 pmReligious nutcases running for president aside,
It’s not that bad an idea to think about revisiting that particular clause of the 14th amendment.
It’s one of those clauses that made sense at the time. It had to be worded broadly to make damn sure that every former slave got their US citizenship, but now 100 years later it seems overly broad.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:01 pmThat tells me he knows nothing about the Constitution – I wonder if any of his “handlers†has informed him that it is not within the President’s power to singlehandedly amend the Constitution?
Whether or not the amendment goes through is still up to We The People. Oops!
Comment by EastportGal — January 9, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
Unless Bush is President and Nancy Pelosi is Speaker.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:02 pmWell, Buckie Boy, your views are your right, but a constitutional Amendment denying the birthright clause is going to look racist and petty, to say the least. And it isn’t necessary. If rich Republicans weren’t so greedy, they wouldn’t need to inport illegals to do their laundry, gardening and grape-picking.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:04 pmThey were not “aliens†and there was nothing “illegal†about crossing the border back into the U.S. since they were U.S. citizens.
Comment by good_golly — January 9, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
that’s what you think, but you may very well be wrong.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:05 pmThe Washington Times could be deliberately misquoting Huckabee for whatever nefarious reasons the Moonies might have, or Huck might just be floating a couple of trial balloons to see which one flies without getting shot down.
Either way, it wouldn’t hurt to nail down his position on this issue, and let the voters decide. Is any medium OTHER than the Times asking him?
January 9th, 2008 at 12:05 pmWell, Buckie Boy, your views are your right, but a constitutional Amendment denying the birthright clause is going to look racist and petty, to say the least. And it isn’t necessary. If rich Republicans weren’t so greedy, they wouldn’t need to inport illegals to do their laundry, gardening and grape-picking.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 9, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
——
Very true. This shouldn’t even be at the fore of the political discourse because it is damn near impossible to get an amendment passed.
I’m in favor of it being changed, but I don’t exactly want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the “ZOMG ANCHOR BABIES ARE TAKING OUR LINCOLN LOGS” “WTF BIRTH TOURISM” mouth breathers.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:10 pmLefty Patriot
I don’t care about race, it is the fact that we are being overpopulated that is my concern. Many of our cities are getting to crowded and the urban expansion is affecting our environment, that is why I think it should be changed, we don’t need more people.
I’m native american so….well you get the point.
Buck Fush
January 9th, 2008 at 12:10 pm.
This comes from a man who says “We are God’s Army” and endorses the continued slaughter of innocent people in the Middle East.
.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:10 pmthese idiots cease to amaze me….
jesus the bar has been lowered.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pmI’m native american so….well you get the point.
Buck Fush
Comment by Buckie Boy — January 9, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
Well, I do understand, as I have Native American in my background as well. But the overpopulation isn’t because of illegal immigration, or immigration in general. If y8ou want to fight overpopulation, fight for birth control.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:13 pmBush as tried his best to destroy the US Constitution now Rev. Huck will do his part. Soon only the Republicans will be US citizens with rights and the rest of Americans will have to have owners. Thank goodness the American people have woke up and seen these liars for who they are. Mitt still sees he’s Mexican Dad marching with Dr. King oh in a dream. McCain who got less votes then second place Senator Obama, wants to stay in Iraq for 10,000 years and he wants to bomb Iran on a thought. Look for Rev. to bring out his big gun the famous floating cross aka bookshelf.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:17 pmThat is completely false and moronic.
Comment by good_golly
These are the kinds of statments that make us admire and respect you…..troll
January 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pmMeanwhile, on Sunday in Windham, New Hampshire, the former Baptist Minister and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee returned to his roots and delivered a sermon on being “soldiers for Christ” in “God’s Army.”
For the details, see:
January 9th, 2008 at 12:20 pm“Huckabee Delivers Sermon on ‘God’s Army’ in NH.”
Comment by good_golly — January 9, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
I could care less what Romney’s father did.
I don’t like Romney because he is a warmongering freak, who never served because he used his religion as an excuse avoid the draft. He couldn’t serve for “religious reasons, yet his religion has nothing against sending others to die for him.
Kind of like some of the coward trolls here, like you. Won’t serve but expect others to serve and die.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:22 pmWhy is illegal immigration such an issue? Can’t we all band together on this issue? Who is honestly ok with aliens breaking into our country illegally anyways? We should do everything in our power to prevent anyone from coming illegally. Seems obvious and something both parties should get behind. Sadly, the Repugs want the cheap labor and the the Dems think they will someday get amnesty and vote Dem.
Both parties are just sad.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:26 pmgood_golly is just misunderstood…..he is really trying to help us
please help us good_golly we are lost without you.
good_golly knows everything just ask him. just read his posts.
sarcasm.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:28 pmSadly, the Repugs want the cheap labor and the the Dems think they will someday get amnesty and vote Dem.
Both parties are just sad.
Comment by Roger_Roger
well you got the first part of it right…..oh, that’s the only thing you got right.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:29 pmWow, I didn’t know that Romney didn’t serve our country because of religious reasons. But he has no problem sending others to their death. How could any Republican stand up and vouch for such a cowardly, self serving, yellow bellied flip flopper?
good golly, you stand behind this armchair general? If so, you follow a fool and a coward.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:31 pmActually the US has been violating a treaty, called the Jay Treaty, for a long time. That treaty allowed unrestricted border crossing for indigenous people, Native Americans.
There is a reason Native Americans consider Treaties signed with the US to have the same worth as toilet paper.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:32 pmWow, I didn’t know that Romney didn’t serve our country because of religious reasons. But he has no problem sending others to their death. How could any Republican stand up and vouch for such a cowardly, self serving, yellow bellied flip flopper?
Comment by hellinabucket — January 9, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
They’ve had a lot of practice. Republicans love their chickenhawks.
Don’t forget, Mitt’s also the eejit who claimed that his five sons are doing their patriotic duty by working on his campaign. No need for his boys to serve in the military, nosiree. The Republics and the elite are always more than happy to send working class and poor kids off to die.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:34 pmThe author of the relevant part of the 14th explicitly said it wasn’t intended to apply to “foreigners”. Let me suggest that TP does some legal research.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:39 pmGive the place back to the dinosaurs and let’s all get out!
January 9th, 2008 at 12:41 pmyeah when Romney said his boys serve the country by serving his campaign (paraphrasing so all you trolls choke on it) that solidified my view of this plastic candidate.
I believe the authors of the 2nd amendment didn’t intend to have anything other than a quick response force in case this country was attacked again but that hasn’t stopped the NRA from pushing.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:45 pmThe author of the relevant part of the 14th explicitly said it wasn’t intended to apply to “foreignersâ€. Let me suggest that TP does some legal research.
Comment by Immigration2008DotCom — January 9, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Maybe he should have included that in the bill, hmmmm?
While doing your own legal research, start with United States v. Wong Kim Ark. SCOTUS determined, as far back as 1898, that you’re wrong (and tied it to English common law, which goes back considerably farther than that).
January 9th, 2008 at 12:52 pmI wonder how far back Huckabee would go with this plan. Would it apply only to the next generation, or also the previous generation, our parents, our grandparents? What about the illegal immigrants who first came from Europe, murdered the Indians and stole their land. Do we go that far back?
January 9th, 2008 at 12:53 pmI have yet to declare the candiate I “stand behind.â€
Comment by good_golly — January 9, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Yet you constantly defend their idiocy…..
January 9th, 2008 at 12:58 pmgo figure
Good golly, should I take that as you may still stand behind Romney? If you haven’t decided have you ruled anyone out? Past posts from you have shown support for continuing our military involvment in Iraq. Wouldn’t you have a hard time coming to grips with supporting someone who had no problem avoiding service and now has no problem continuing to put soldiers in harm’s way?
January 9th, 2008 at 1:01 pmI have yet to declare the candiate I “stand behind.â€
Comment by good_golly
Which ever one is dumb enough to turn his back on you?
January 9th, 2008 at 1:02 pmHow easy is it to say you longed to do the hard work and serve but not join? That’s what he’s hanging his civilian hat on? He couldn’t fill the shoes but he’s filling your head.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:03 pmMitt Romney received a deferment from the draft as a Mormon “minister of religion†for the duration of his missionary work in France. After his missionary deferment, Romney also received deferments for his academic studies. When his deferments ended…
Comment by good_golly
I don’t think deferments ended so much as Cheney and Romney used all of them up, and there weren’t any left for the rest of us.
Don’t worry gg, you’ll vote for Romney, just as you have been told to do by the Bush cartel.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:05 pmActually the US has been violating a treaty, called the Jay Treaty, for a long time. That treaty allowed unrestricted border crossing for indigenous people, Native Americans.
There is a reason Native Americans consider Treaties signed with the US to have the same worth as toilet paper.
Comment by Wayne — January 9, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
And considering that many poor center and south americans migrating “illegally” to the USA have more indigenous blood than the entire Congress… or all the presidential candidates toghether… the nerve…
January 9th, 2008 at 1:12 pm…it will be time to withdraw most of our forces (or all of them if the sovereign Iraqi government asks us to take them all out). One step at a time.
Comment by good_golly
you really should use big words like “sovereign” when you don’t know what they mean. It makes you look very foolish.
1sov·er·eign : noun
1 b: one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere
January 9th, 2008 at 1:13 pmI have yet to declare the candiate I “stand behind.â€
Comment by good_golly
Which ever one is dumb enough to turn his back on you?
Comment by shoeless — January 9, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
_________________________
It’s always easy to call the other side “dumb.†While each of the 4 leading Republicans and 3 leading Democrats have said some “dumb†things or taken some “dumb†positions from time to time, I don’t think any of the 7 are “dumb†themselves. Each of the 7 appears quite intelligent in their own way.
Comment by good_golly
It’s too bad some people are too dumb to get a joke.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:16 pmIf he would have drawn a low number, he would have served. “I was supportive of my country. I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.â€
Comment by good_golly — January 9, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Apparently neither goon_golly or Mitt realize that the Army was still taking volunteers in 1970. If Mitt really longed to serve in Vietnam he only needed to show up at a recruiting office.
That’s the biggest load of bullsh!t I’ve seen in a long while.
And, honestly, only a complete moron would offer it as a plausible explanation for Mitt’s failure to serve.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:17 pm“I was supportive of my country. I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.†Mitt Romney’s quote from gg.
“I longed in many respects” translation “Whewww”
And what the hell does the rest of that quote even mean? Frustrated not to feel like I was there as part of the troops. That is some of the lamest load of BS that has ever come out of a chickenhawk.
Did anyone catch the Daily Show’s slam on Romney when caught calling Huckebee’s (now filp flop) immigration policy amnesty? Romney says he never said that and boom there’s his own ad calling it amnesty. Romney said he didn’t see it even though the standard “I support this message” is tagged at the end.
The man can’t even stand behind his own message and you haven’t ruled him out. shheeeeesh.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:18 pmRomney says he never said that and boom there’s his own ad calling it amnesty. Romney said he didn’t see it even though the standard “I support this message†is tagged at the end.
The man can’t even stand behind his own message and you haven’t ruled him out. shheeeeesh.
Comment by hellinabucket
We should call the FEC. I think it is illegal to lie when saying, “I support this message.â€
January 9th, 2008 at 1:25 pmOh yeah, Mittens “longed to serve” – just like I long to stick pins in my eyes.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:38 pmGG, where did you go? I was hoping you would grow a backbone and used fact to show where you stand. Was it too hard for you to stay in the sun among the real so you slunk back under a rock?
January 9th, 2008 at 2:03 pmIf you’re born in the US, you’re a citizen. That’s it.
The child has no control or say over who it’s parents are, and what their legal status is.
Wingnuts always want to amend the Constitution to take away rights and freedoms — unless you are the right sort.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:15 pmI agree Zooey. It is that simple.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:17 pmWingnuts always want to amend the Constitution to take away rights and freedoms — unless you are the right sort.
Comment by Zooey
Good point. Nearly all Amendments to the Constitution have expanded rights. Only right-wingnuts can conceive of the idea of using amendments to restrict rights. If Republicans had been around back in 1787, the first 10 Amendments would be called the “Bill of Wrongs”.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:31 pmI’m not much for the word, illegal “aliens”. Considering “ILLEGAL COLONIZERSâ€, this is the truth. I don’t understand why people have such a problem with Mike Huckabee; he’s only looking out for America’s laws and well-being; the one man necessary for America! However, I’ve never seen a country more upside down then America is today. It’s all about being politically correct and to hell with the Constitution. If America doesn’t get back to the basics in abiding in it, there won’t be an America!
January 9th, 2008 at 2:34 pmWe supposedly elect people to protect our Constitution, but in reality, it’s being attacked from all sides and few people realize or understand it. Socialism is not that far off, if we continue!
Socialism is not that far off, if we continue!
Comment by T. Martinez
You mean like France?
France is healthcare leader, US comes dead last: study
Or Norway?
Norway still the world’s best place to live
We can only hope!
January 9th, 2008 at 3:00 pmI thought as Americans we “were better than that”………..
January 9th, 2008 at 3:02 pmshoeless; If there current GOP were around at the writing of the Constitution, ALL power would be in the hands of the ‘unitary executive, who could unilaterally overrule any decision by the SCOTUS or Congress, and there never would be anything even remotely like that pesky Bill of Rights thing for the people.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:06 pmAnd corporations would have protections, but none for employees or people.
And corporations would have protections, but none for employees or people.
Comment by Uncle Ho
Sounds like the Libertarian Party Platform.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:15 pmshoeless; never thought about it in that way.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:26 pmSince George Romney’s father brought him into the U.S. illegally, does this mean that Mitt would be an”illegal?”
January 9th, 2008 at 3:44 pmI’m guessing it would depend on where Mitt was born.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pmSince George Romney’s father brought him into the U.S. illegally, does this mean that Mitt would be anâ€illegal?â€
Comment by Lars
As I asked before, how far back does Huckleberry want to go with this? My ancestors immigrated to America in the 1600s. I doubt the Indians considered them to be legal immigrants. If you take the Huckster’s policy back that far, I would be considered “illegal” simply because my family has been here for so long.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:07 pmHeck Huck, Why stop there?
How ’bout we force anyone that does anything Against our constitution or says anything unAmerican to give up their citizenship too?
Repugs get front of the line priviledges to get thrown out first.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pmIs everyone forgetting that georgejr wanted the power to take away citizenship of anyone he deemed a “terrorist” or “enemy combatant”? He only barely missed getting Congress to approve that one, while they were busy anointing him with all the other extra-constitutional powers he claimed 9/11 entitled him to.
There are consequences in setting precedents, by allowing an officeholder to exceed his lawful mandate – everyone who follows expect the same powers; and they NEVER EVER voluntarily reverse
the trend.
So, it’s not surprising that Huckabee wants to repeal the citizenship of brown people; and he’s salivating at the idea of getting to be the one who can designate anyone he doesn’t like an enemy combatant. You can almost see his and Guiliani’s anticipation of getting to torture people – bet they’ll want hands-on participation, not just tapes to watch.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:13 pmIt would not be what Romney’s father did, but rather what his grandfather did, that could have a bearing on his father’s citizenship.
Section 8 of the Edmunds Act as enacted (22 Stat. 31-32, 1864-1883).
That no polygamist, bigamist, or any person cohabiting with more than one woman, and no woman cohabiting with any of the persons described as aforesaid in this section, in any Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall be entitled to vote at any election held in any such Territory or other place, or be eligible for election or appointment to or be entitled to hold any office or place of public trust, honor, or emolument, in under, or for any such Territory or place or under the United States.
I will have to wait until tomorrow when I can examine the text of 48 USC 1861 at the time of its repeal in 1983, to determine the full effect of the Edmunds Act on the Romney family citizenship.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:56 pmYes, “birthright citizenship is explicitly laid out in the 14th amendment,” assuming you think that the CLEARLY EXPRESSED INTENT of the 39th Congress is worth respecting. There is quote after quote after quote from the authors et al., clearly explaining what is meant by the qualifier “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They excluded “Indians”, “foreigners,” “aliens,” consuls, etc. They explicitly say it means full and total jurisdiction, a/k/a that which comes with citizenship. So if the parent is not a citizen, the baby is not an (automatic) citizen though obviously could still have the opportunity to naturalize later. SCOTUS respected the expressed Congressional intent for 30 years, until an “activist judge” decided he wanted it to mean something else, ruling that the US born son of legally, permanently domiciled foreign parents was a citizen at birth. Again, legally and permanently domiciled parents. One case. And the issue of domicile was the criterion the judge used to claim they were “subject to the (complete) jurisdiction”. So to take that and apply it to someone just crossing the border to drop a kid, is a whole other huge leap, even if you accept the bogus ruling that started this whole mess. And everyone just accepts it as fact, that if you’re born here, you’re a citizen. It’s ludicrous. So no constitutional amendment taking something away is necessary, because there was never a constitutional amendment giving it in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, the drafters were Sens Bingham and Howard. Also John C. Eastman has written extensively and clearly on this issue, most notably in a brief submitted in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:27 pmSeems to me one has to interpret the actual wording of the 14th Amendment (as ratified by the STATES) to mean what it says -”activist judge”, notwithstanding. Born here=citizen, whether you like it or not!
January 10th, 2008 at 12:12 amSovereingty begins at the border. It is not only moronic, but actually treasonous to NOT provide citizenship to geographically born people. What? You are going to allow ANOTHER country to lay cliam to humans born on your shores. What are you fu(king kidding me? Yeah, all of a sudden, East Backwaterstan starts telling us that we cannot do X, Y or Z on person A because they are citizens of East Backwaterstan. Are you people fu(king nuts? or What. Citizen begins where you are, now if you want to talk about the birthed to parents clause, then I am willing to give an inch, but the other thing, NO FUKING WAY.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:05 amIt is geopolitical suicide to not lay claim to the people born within your borders. You are dead otherwise. What a REPUBLITOID CONSERVO Piece of crap talking point this is. So, ALL citizens wll ONLY come from current citizens. Think about this….
“shall be entitled to vote at any election held in any such Territory or other place, or be eligible for election or appointment to or be entitled to hold any office or place of public trust, honor, or emolument, in under, or for any such Territory or place or under the United States.
I will have to wait until tomorrow when I can examine the text of 48 USC 1861 at the time of its repeal in 1983, to determine the full effect of the Edmunds Act on the Romney family citizenship.”
Comment by greggp
It does not say they are NOT citizens. Instead of laying out all they CANNOT do, why not just say “we strip them of their citizenship”?
January 10th, 2008 at 9:11 amThey went to great lengths to NOT strip them, they instead, gave great detail as to what they could or could not do. Seems like they were creating a totally different class of citizens. Almost like a felon, sans conviction.
I said:
“Seems like they were creating a totally different class of citizens. Almost like a felon, sans conviction.”
And this was probably due to some Religious political powers that wanted to control them more than the secular political will wanting to just excise them.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:13 am