WASHINGTON TIMES: Huckabee vows to defy citizenship

[SolarEnergy1]

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080108/NATION/311698216/1001

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.

 

[Paulie]

Christ dude, it's EVERYDAY now with this guy!

You do realize that's not an original idea of his, right? Ron's been saying that for YEARS.

When are you going to realize that this guy is making up positions as he goes along?

His rhetoric these last few months is a complete 180 from his RECORD.

Have you even done any homework on this guy, or do you just read news articles and watch TV news? You don't seem to be a very informed voter...

 

[Paulie]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html

From 2006, dude. Wake up, this is NOT a new idea coming from Huckabee.

And from Ron's website, where it's been his entire campaign:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

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.

Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

 

[SolarEnergy1]

Christ dude, it's EVERYDAY now with this guy!

You do realize that's not an original idea of his, right? Ron's been saying that for YEARS.

When are you going to realize that this guy is making up positions as he goes along?

His rhetoric these last few months is a complete 180 from his RECORD.

Have you even done any homework on this guy, or do you just read news articles and watch TV news? You don't seem to be a very informed voter...

Who's Ron?

 

[Paulie]

Who's Ron?

Hey whatever man. If you want to vote for the fake candidate who's stealing someone else's positions as he goes along, that's on you. Just don't come crying when he doesn't come through on any of them, because they weren't his real positions to begin with.

Don't ever say no one told you.

 

[hjmick]

You do realize that's not an original idea of his, right? Ron's been saying that for YEARS.

Yeah? I've been saying for the last 25 years at least, long before I ever heard of Ron Paul. Maybe Ron got the idea from me?

The point is, it's not a stroke of genius nor is it any sort of epiphany for someone to advocate amending the 14th.

Let's not pretend that the idea originated with your candidate of choice.

 

[Paulie]

Yeah? I've been saying for the last 25 years at least, long before I ever heard of Ron Paul. Maybe Ron got the idea from me?

The point is, it's not a stroke of genius nor is it any sort of epiphany for someone to advocate amending the 14th.

Let's not pretend that the idea originated with your candidate of choice.

Um, I'm not the one pretending my candidate originated it. The original poster in this thread is. I'm merely pointing out that he's wrong. You didn't catch that?

 

[indago]

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM AND THE CENSUS

Congressman Michael R. Turner, Chairman

OVERSIGHT HEARING

STATEMENT BY MICHAEL R. TURNER, CHAIRMAN

Hearing topic: "Counting the Vote: Should Only US citizens Be Included In Apportioning Our Elected Representatives?"

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 10:00 am

Room 2247 Rayburn House Office Building

Welcome to the Subcommittee's oversight hearing entitled, "Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens Be Included In Apportioning Our Elected Representatives?"

We are here today to discuss a proposed amendment to the Constitution that will change how the Census Bureau determines the enumeration for the purposes of apportioning the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Fourteenth Amendment states, "Representatives of the House shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." In other words, all individuals residing in the United States on Census Day, except for non-taxed Indians, must be enumerated to determine the apportionment base.

The issue of whether non-citizens should be included in the apportionment base has received considerable congressional attention in the past. In 1940, for example, Representative Celler of New York said on the floor of the House, "The Constitution says that all persons shall be counted. I cannot quarrel with the founding fathers. They said that all should be counted . . . The only way we can exclude [anyone] would be to pass a constitutional amendment."

Most legal scholars agree with the view of Representative Celler that any attempt to exclude non-citizens from enumeration must be accomplished by a constitutional amendment. That is what Representative Candice Miller has proposed to do by introducing House Joint Resolution 53. This measure is a straightforward proposal to distinguish citizens of the United States from the total population for purposes of determining the apportionment base. I am willing to wager that many – if not most – Americans think this is exactly how it is done today and would be shocked to learn that non-citizens, especially those in the country illegally, have an impact on apportioning the membership of the House of Representatives.

Regardless of possible popular belief, there may be some very compelling reasons why the Framers used the word "persons" instead of the word "citizens" or "voters" when they crafted the Fourteenth Amendment. The primary question before us here today is: If H.J. Res. 53 is adopted by Congress and ratified by the states, how would things be different?

We have several witnesses today that may provide the Subcommittee some insight into what the political landscape would have looked like in the past if the census excluded non-citizens and what it may look like after the 2010 Census if H.J. Res. 53 is adopted. I think you will find this testimony most interesting.

This hearing has been structured in such a way that the Subcommittee will first hear from Congresswoman Miller so that she may describe her proposal.

The Subcommittee will then hear from a second panel comprised of two esteemed demographers, Clark Bensen, a consultant, and publisher from the Polidata Company and Steven Camarota, Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies. Joining these two will be Lawrence Gonzalez representing the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.

Finally on our third panel we will hear from several legal and academic scholars including the former Director of the Census Bureau, Dr. Ken Prewitt. Joining Dr. Prewitt will be James Gimpel, Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland; Johnny Killian, Senior Specialist in Constitutional Law in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service; Andrew Spiropoulos, Professor of Law at the Oklahoma City University School of Law, and Nina Perales, Southwestern Regional Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

With that, my colleagues on the Subcommittee and I welcome you and look forward to your testimony.

 

[hjmick]

Um, I'm not the one pretending my candidate originated it. The original poster in this thread is. I'm merely pointing out that he's wrong. You didn't catch that?

I caught it, I'm just saying.

Honestly, I have yet to decide who my vote will go to. I agree with Paul on many issues and was very much on board with his candidacy early on. He may still get my vote.

My biggest problem right now is simply this, my cousin is a very strong supporter of Paul. My cousin is a bigot, a bigot in the extreme. Now, I know that this does not make Paul a bigot, but it does make me question why someone who holds strong racist views would find Ron Paul's positions so damn appealing.

Does this make sense? I am not being flippant. Can you, or anyone for that matter, understand why that might raise some flags for a person?

Anyway, as a rsult, I have taken a couple of steps back from the enthusiasm I had for Paul and have been doing more research on all the candidates and their positions.

So far, I still like Paul, with the possible exception of what I percive to be his somewhat isolationist views.

 

[Paulie]

I caught it, I'm just saying.

Honestly, I have yet to decide who my vote will go to. I agree with Paul on many issues and was very much on board with his candidacy early on. He may still get my vote.

My biggest problem right now is simply this, my cousin is a very strong supporter of Paul. My cousin is a bigot, a bigot in the extreme. Now, I know that this does not make Paul a bigot, but it does make me question why someone who holds strong racist views would find Ron Paul's positions so damn appealing.

Does this make sense? I am not being flippant. Can you, or anyone for that matter, understand why that might raise some flags for a person?

Anyway, as a rsult, I have taken a couple of steps back from the enthusiasm I had for Paul and have been doing more research on all the candidates and their positions.

So far, I still like Paul, with the possible exception of what I percive to be his somewhat isolationist views.

I think the main reason why racists like RP is his policy towards Israel, which if you REALLY study Ron, would be the same policy that goes for ANY nation. The racists just think he's anti-israel, which to them means, anti-jew. It's stupid, I know, but that defines a racist, no? They probably ought to do some more homework on their guy.

Also, keep in mind, racists will probably only follow OTHER racists, so when RP caught on in the racist community, they naturally followed suit.

You'll probably find that a lot of racists were supporting Bush in 2000, as well. I know that Stormfront was supporting him back then. Obviously they didn't get what they wanted though, because we're about as pro-israel as we've EVER been.

You really shouldn't judge a candidate based on a certain type of support they have. As long as YOU'RE not a racist, what should it even matter to you? Nothing in RP's record indicates that he would in any way achieve the specific agendas of the racist community.

 

[hjmick]

I think the main reason why racists like RP is his policy towards Israel, which if you REALLY study Ron, would be the same policy that goes for ANY nation. The racists just think he's anti-israel, which to them means, anti-jew. It's stupid, I know, but that defines a racist, no? They probably ought to do some more homework on their guy.

Also, keep in mind, racists will probably only follow OTHER racists, so when RP caught on in the racist community, they naturally followed suit.

You'll probably find that a lot of racists were supporting Bush in 2000, as well. I know that Stormfront was supporting him back then. Obviously they didn't get what they wanted though, because we're about as pro-israel as we've EVER been.

You really shouldn't judge a candidate based on a certain type of support they have. As long as YOU'RE not a racist, what should it even matter to you? Nothing in RP's record indicates that he would in any way achieve the specific agendas of the racist community.

You're absolutely right.

This is the reason I have been studying more closely the positions of Paul as well as the other candidates, even the Dems. More so than in previous years.

 

[Paulie]

Either that, or your average racist who supports RP doesn't even KNOW why they support him.

Who knows...maybe with some, it has nothing to do with their racism, maybe they just LIKE the guy. A lot of people do. I seriously doubt that everyone who is racist that supports him, does so because of something they perceive as him possibly achieving a racist agenda.

Why not just ask your cousin why he likes him? Maybe he'll give you a really good answer that pleases you, or maybe he'll just say something ridiculous like "he hates the jews like me".

Give him a call and see what he says.

 

[hjmick]

Either that, or your average racist who supports RP doesn't even KNOW why they support him.

Who knows...maybe with some, it has nothing to do with their racism, maybe they just LIKE the guy. A lot of people do. I seriously doubt that everyone who is racist that supports him, does so because of something they perceive as him possibly achieving a racist agenda.

Why not just ask your cousin why he likes him? Maybe he'll give you a really good answer that pleases you, or maybe he'll just say something ridiculous like "he hates the jews like me".

Give him a call and see what he says.

LOL. Interesting thought. I haven't talked to him in years because of his views. If it wasn't for the family web page, I wouldn't have even known who he supported.

I'll have to think about your suggestion.