Rand Paul made the mistake, again, of speaking openly about a hot button issue. Should children of illegal aliens be giving citizenship if they are born in the US? Listen to the whole interview here, and see really what Rand was talking about.
Now what did Rand really say? He said that we are the only country that permits foreign nationals to obtain citizenship just be being born in this county. The whole “anchor baby” meme.
As with all wedge issues, your either 100% for it or 100% against it, there is very little gray area. Rand is right, that democrats would generally like to allow all illegals to become citizens because they usually vote democrat. The reverse is true as well, republicans don’t like the amnesty approach because they wouldn’t get their votes. Of course, I’ve said before, both parties like it this way, because it create an instant constituency. Democrats pretty much automatically get the Latino vote, and Republicans automatically get the “close the border” vote. Which is why Rand said that neither party has the willpower to do anything about the boarders.
The whole idea of citizenship by being born in the US comes to us from the 14th amendment.
Section 1. 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.
Now there is an argument to be made that “jurisdiction therof” clause was put in there to “exclude persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” That was what the author of the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob M. Howard said. That’s the interpretation I’m sure Rand Paul is thinking about as well.
Most proponents of this view would cite Elk v. Wilkins, which determined that children of Native Americans born on a reservation were not citizens in part because the reservation is not technically a part of the US jurisdiction. This lack of citizenship was rectified by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Personally, I don’t think this view is applicable since the question posed by Rand is one of where the children are born in the jurisdiction of the US.
The only other time the Citizenship Clause was challenged was in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. This is a more substantial case, but reading the opinion, it doesn’t really give the proponents of amnesty much to work with either.
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: ‘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.’
In a 6-2 decision, they found for Wong, that he is a citizen. Yet, I think the dissenting opinion holds more sway now than it did back in the late 1800s. The finding for Wong is heavily influenced by english common law (Jus Soli), which the dissenting judges said was/is no longer valid in the US after independence.
From what little I have read, I think the dissenting opinion holds more sway, since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land not the Magna Carta. Of course this leads in the to whole should the US be subject to international law debate, which I don’t want to get into (I say no). It should be noted that SCOTUS has never fully addressed the problem of are children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship? Which is exactly what Rand Paul is talking about.
It’s an interesting question, that I’m sure both sides will get heated about. Yet, this ony underscores why I like Rand Paul. He gets people thinking about questions that need to be answered one way or another, but everyone is too afraid to too complacent to ask. I mean what would happen if SCOTUS were to rule against illegal immigration anchor babies? They could, and very easily, since the Court doesn’t really hold to any common law ideals anymore.
One more thing, Paul is right that other countries don’t allow for anchor babies. How much air time do you think that will get on the MSM? Probably none.
Well first off I like him. First watch these two clips of Maddow for the background if you don’t already know it.
My first thought is, leave it to the Left to try and throw race and racism into the mix, when they don’t have anything else to go on.
I think Dr. Paul makes a good point, what does the Civil Rights Act have to do with a Senate race in Kentucky. If you look at his issues page on his website, I don’t see him anywhere talking about repealing CRA. I looked really hard too. But do Liberals really need any reason to throw out the race card?
What Dr. Paul was trying to say, is that any public discrimination should be prohibited. Race should not be an issue in voting, schools, courts etc. The issue comes down to should a private entity; restaurant, movie theater, etc, be allowed to discriminate? Well I hate to break it to the Liberals, but they always have and they always will. I get discriminated all the time at the movie theater. If I don’t have a ticket I can’t go in. I can’t hop from screen to screen all day. The movie theater can tell me where to go and not to go in the theater, and I have no problem with that. They own the building and they make the rules.
We know that discrimination of some form or another happens all the time, that just a fact of life. People discriminate and segregate themselves everyday. The old cliche that Sunday is the most heavily segregated day in the U.S. ring true. Should that be illegal? I hope everyone says no, unless you want the government to start “desegregation” of churches like they do schools, by busing parishioners across their cities in an effort to get the proper “racial mix.” What ever the hell that means.
I think the problem here is that Liberals take the CRA to be some sort of sacred cow. They don’t see any shades of gray, either your 100% for it or 100% against it. I don’t know anyone who is against it. Racism is wrong, as a society we have come to accept that and institutionalize that. Yet the question that Dr. Paul brings up is, how far does the Government get to go? It also brings up the question of legislating morality.
So how far can the government go? Well as we have seen from this past year, as far as they want. Any government that can force you to buy a product, authorize the assassination of an American citizens, can pretty much do what ever they hell they want. They know that, and we know that. Whens the last time Congress did anything that the people wanted?
One thing to keep in mind, is that the racism of the Jim Crow ever, was institutional. Meaning it was State sponsored. This is an excellent piece by law professor David Bernstein of George Mason University. (GMU is probably my most favorite school, with faculty like Roberts (Econtalk), Walter Williams, and Bernstein; how can you go wrong?)
So let’s compare the libertarian position to what the Supreme Court held in the 1880s, 1890s, and 1900s, and, more generally, to the situation in the Jim Crow South.
(1) The Supreme Court did hold that the federal government could not prohibit private, voluntary discrimination. Some, but not all libertarians, would argue that the Court went too far in allowing discrimination even in common carriers and other monopolies. On that score, the Supreme Court was, say, mostly libertarian. But the Court fails the libertarian test by every other measure, to wit: (2) The Court allowed state and local governments to discriminate with impunity, as with its endorsement of the constitutionality of separate and unequal public schools. The Supreme Court also upheld less well-known examples of discriminatory legislation, such as emigrant agent laws; (3) The Court upheld state and local segregation laws that applied to private parties, most famously the law in Plessy (opposed by the private train company, btw), including even laws that required segregation on interstate trains that traveled to the North; (4) The Court effectively banned the federal government from combating racist violence. (5) The Court failed to protect African-American voting rights.
I would also argue that the Courts asinine evisceration of the “privileges and immunities clause” of the 14th Amendment severely damaged the protection against State abuses that the 14th was intended to stop. The privileges and immunities clause protects the economic interest of every citizen. That the biggest damn privilege of being a citizen of this country to to contract with who you want and do business with who you want. Extending that protection to blacks was an integral part of the 14th.
As the historian Eric Foner has put it, “To Douglass, the wage represented not a mark of oppression but a symbol of a fair exchange, reflecting the fact that for the first time in his life he enjoyed the fruits of his labor.”
Another good essay from a GMU Law professor here:
As David Currie13 and John Harrison14 explain this view, states have substantial discretion what “privileges” and “immunities” to provide for their citizens. But once they have chosen whatever privileges and immunities they decide to provide, they must provide those rights on justifiably equal terms to all citizens.
I’d argue that the whole 14th is a very very libertarian law. Then SCOTUS castrated it in 1873. A proper reading of the “Privileges and Immunities Clause” would have made the CRA unnecessary. Since CRA codifies what was already written in the 14th. One reason, I think, that the “Privileges and Immunities Clause” isn’t talked about, is because it would make affirmative action illegal. And we know Liberals can’t have that can they.
Here is another post from Ilyh Somin at Volokh Conspiracy, fast becoming one of my favorite blogs, on the Rand Paul .
Not surprisingly, 1960s libertarians such as Ayn Rand did in fact favor federal action to curb discrimination against blacks by southern state governments. Rand, for example specifically denounced the use of “states’ rights” as justification for Jim Crow in several of her works in the 1960s. In Capitalism and Freedom, written in 1962, Milton Friedman criticized the Jim Crow policies of southern state governments and emphasized that “forced integration” of public schools was preferable to “forced segregation,” though he also argued that both could be avoided by adopting school choice policies. As David notes, many 19th and early 20th century antislavery and civil rights activists — including William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and many of the founders NAACP, such as Moorfield Storey — held what would today be considered libertarian views on economic and social policy. They saw no contradiction between that and favoring federal action against slavery and later Jim Crow. Neither should we.
In essence my position is this, since Slavery was a government enforced institution against freedom, then I see “no contradiction between that and favoring federal action against slavery and later Jim Crow.” I generally don’t agree with government action but since the cultural norms that developed in the Jim Crow South were in part caused by State enforced laws, then the Fed government needed to pass laws to protect people against abuses by the States. Yet, all that wouldn’t have been necessary had the Court not eviscerated the 14th in the late 1800s. And of course there are other factors that come into play, since society is a highly complex system.
Reconstruction had a devastating impact the South. It made people angry at the North for a very brutal and restrictive regime. Since people couldn’t openly rebel again, they took their anger out on blacks as a proxy. Had the North acted civilized during reconstruction, institutional racism in the South might never had come about. It’s important to remember that slavery and racism in the South was dying before the civil war, and would have continued to do so had the war never happened. The ending of slavery by natural process would have been free from any hint of racism, since it is society driven, not imposed.
Think about it like this, how often, growing up, did we see the wisdom in what our parents told us? We hated it when our parents told us to do something. I know I did. I didn’t see the reason why I couldn’t do this or that. It wasn’t until I got older and when I discovered that wisdom for myself did I truly appreciate it. Only when you discover it for yourself, do you really understand the reason behind it.
I think Dr. Paul’s problem was going on NPR and Maddow to begin with. Maddow lets her feeling be known about the Tea Parties, she doesn’t like them. She, like most liberals, think they are all racist. Is it any surprise that she uses the CRA as some sort of moral bludgeon?
Rand should have known better. He is a Tea Party candidate, why is he doing interviews with clearly anti-Tea Party pundits? I’d say that is a rookie mistake. Although his dad should have warned him about it. But as I said above, maybe he needed to learn on his own?
Is it no surprise that Rand Paul’s numbers are still high. The voters know the tricks that Liberals love to use. They can see the race card being played. After seeing the master of the race card at work throughout the whole 2008 election, people can easily see through Maddow amateurish usage.
I think this will backfire on the Democrats, yet again. The people are smarter than they think. They can see through the lies and deceit. Hell that’s the whole reason behind the ass pounding the Democrats are going to take in 160 days. People are talking about government’s role in creating institutional racism, which doesn’t bode well for big government liberals. This should get people thinking about another form of institutional racism, affirmative action.
Here’s Rand Paul talking about this issue.
It just makes me like Rand Paul more.