The GOP’s top presidential candidate Gov. Rick Perry (TX) recently discovered that his occasional compassion for undocumented children is a serious liability with the Republican base. But the other candidate from Texas, Rep. Ron Paul (R), appears to have learned that lesson long ago. Going far beyond opposition to any kind of DREAM Act legislation for children, Paul actually questions the validity of the Constitution because he doesn’t believe children born in the U.S. should automatically be U.S. citizens.

Mediaite reports that in an interview with Univision’s Al Punto on Sunday, Paul told host Jorge Ramos that his idea of immigration reform is a “program of assimilation.” But when Ramos asked Paul whether he liked the idea that those born on American soil are automatically citizens — an idea enshrined in the 14th Amendment — this “strict constitutionalist” declared, “No, I don’t think that should be automatic.” When Ramos pointed out that conflicts with the constitution, Paul argued “it depends on how you interpret the constitution”:

RAMOS: As you know, children of undocumented immigrants who are born in the United States are citizens Is that ok?

PAUL: I just think the mere fact of stepping across the border and having a child — and I’m an O.B. doctor and I’ve had to take a lot emergency deliveries and people came for the sole purpose of that. No, I don’t think that should be automatic. I think we should have more control of our borders.

RAMOS: So you want to change the constitution, is that what you’re saying?

PAUL: Well it depends on how you interpret the constitution. “Under the jurisdiction” is the big issue there, and that’s why so often debated. What does “under the jurisdiction” mean? If you’re illegal, you might not be considered under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

Watch it:

Paul has long sought to demolish the 14th Amendment. The chief sponsor of a bill to deny birthright citizenship to any child born to an undocumented parent on American soil in 2007, Paul reiterated the need to “attack the benefits” of undocumented immigrants by ensuring “no free education, no free subsidies, no citizenship, no birthright citizenship.”

The irony here is that, in advocating for the most radically nativist immigration policy, Paul is attacking the one document he swears to live by: the Constitution. Under the 14th Amendment, “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.” As TP Justice editor Ian Millhiser notes, the language is “unambiguous” and is reinforced by the Supreme Court. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and in Plyer v. Doe, the High Court “firmly rejected the notion that persons born in the US are not citizens, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.”

What’s more, the 14th Amendment’s “under the jurisdiction” language simply means that a person is subject to the laws of the U.S. If a child born on U.S. soil is not under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws, then the government has no authority to deport that child. And if illegal immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws as Paul suggests, then they can break U.S. law without consequence — which is certainly not the case.

When Ramos informed Paul that his unconstitutional position would lose him Hispanic support, Paul said “the idea that I have to kow-tow” to “a special group” by giving them “special privileges” is “unnecessary.” “I don’t want to punish anybody because they belong to a group, but nobody should get a special privilege either,” he said. Apparently to Paul, basic rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution now count as “a special privilege.”

ThinkProgress filed this report from the Republican presidential debate in Manchester, New Hampshire

Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO and Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain has had his struggles with the Constitution lately, confusing it and the Declaration of Independence, misunderstanding a clause about bankruptcy, and failing to grasp the unconstitutionality of religious tests in determining someone’s fitness for employment.

At last night’s GOP primary debate in New Hampshire, Cain stretched his misunderstanding of the Constitution into a new subject: birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment. During the debate, Cain said the law needed to be changed so children of undocumented immigrants were not granted citizenship upon birth. He elaborated on his position after the debate:

CAIN: The 14th Amendment doesn’t talk about people that were here illegally. The 14th Amendment applies to slaves, black people, and their descendants who were here.

REPORTER: So you’re suggesting that the 14th Amendment does not say that people who are born in this country are naturalized citizens?

CAIN: …It does say people who are born here. But when it was written, it was written in the spirit of the slaves who were brought to this country. It was not written in the spirit of people who came here illegally. That’s where I’m coming from.

Watch it:

While the 14th Amendment was ratified following the Civil War and granted citizenship to blacks and former slaves who had previously not been considered citizens, its language in no way limits its protections to former slaves: “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.”

The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has ruled that the amendment’s protections extend to anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States, even undocumented immigrants:

…the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter. (Plyler v. Doe)

Cain said he did not believe in changing the 14th Amendment but wanted to change the law or add an amendment to clarify it, and he pleaded ignorance when asked if he’d support legislation proposed by Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and David Vitter (R-LA) that would significantly narrow the amendment’s scope. But recent polling shows his view is out of touch with primary voters in New Hampshire, where 65 percent of Republicans prefer not to change America’s birthright citizenship laws.

The Constitution guarantees that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens with only a handful of very rare exceptions. Nevertheless, in last night’s GOP candidate’s debate, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty criticized the Supreme Court for following the Constitution’s unambiguous language and promised to appoint justices who would strip many Americans of their citizenship:

This issue of birthright citizenship, again, brings up the importance of appointing conservative justices. That result is because the U.S. Supreme Court determined that that right exists, notwithstanding language in the Constitution. I’m the only one up here — I believe I’m the only one up here — whose appointed solidly, reliably conservative appointees to the court.

Watch it:

Pawlenty would do well to actually pick up a copy of the Constitution before he pretends to know what it says. Under the 14th Amendment, “[a]ll 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.” This language is unambiguous; it grants citizenship to all persons born in the US unless they are not subject to American “jurisdiction” — a very narrow exception that applies only to children of foreign diplomats and a handful of other people.

Moreover, the first Supreme Court decision recognizing birthright citizenship was hardly the product of excessive liberalism. The Court first acknowledged this right in an 1898 decision called U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. Three of the justices who joined the majority in Wong Kim Ark also voted with the majority in Lochner v. New York, an infamous Supreme Court decision holding that essential laws protecting workers from exploitation violate the Constitution. Five of the justices in the majority in Wong Kim Ark also voted to uphold Jim Crow in Plessy v Ferguson. So when Pawlenty promises to appoint justices who are more conservative than the ones in Wong Kim Ark, he is essentially calling for a Supreme Court that will immunize sweatshops from the law and uphold segregation.

Sadly, Pawlenty was not the only person on the stage to come out against the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. When asked whether he thinks the children of undocumented immigrants “should be considered a citizen of the United States,” former pizza executive Herman Cain replied, “I don’t believe so.”