“The — our courts have ruled that such children, such babies born
here are United States citizens. That’s part of the 14th Amendment as
has been interpreted by the courts, as I understand it.
THOMPSON: That’s for starters.
I believe that the concentration should not be on the concern of
waiting until that child grows up and serves as an anchor baby, as we
hear so much talk about. I believe the concern should be chain
migration. Right now, we have a situation where people can bring in
spouses, children, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers and so forth.
I think that people should be able to serve as a basis for the
bringing in of their spouses and of their children, but I do not think
there should be endless chain migration.
So I think that is the issue to focus on, and not innocent
children who are born here not of their own accord and who our courts
have said our United States citizens.”
Isn’t that a contradiction to his recent statements. So he thinks the 14th is being interpreted correctly?
He obviously does here. And you and I both know there is no such court ruling, there never has been a ruling regarding the children of illegals.
Freddy made a big, big mistake by showing up here, and an even bigger one opening his mouth and hedging.
Accepting the fact that, up til now, the courts have allowed 'anchor babies' doesn't necessarily mean that he wants that practice to continue. It sounded to me like he was talking about the ones who are already here. I don't think it will take a Constitutional amendment to change the anchor baby practice. I believe it can be done by a vote of Congress. Of course that will be challenged, and it will likely go to the Supremes, but it would be a good way to open the practice up to debate, which hasn't happened yet.
“Isnt that a contradiction to his recent statements.”
Seems like most of Fred’s “new” plan for illegal immigration is a contradiction to his previous statements. IMO, Fred is still talking out of both sides of his mouth. Had he wanted to be clear about the 14th Amendment, he could have easily stated that it needed to be clarified to disallow giving anchor babies legal status. Instead, he chose to be vague. In other instances his “new” plan is a complete flip flop (employer penalties). And because he has stated that he only opposes blanket amnesty and that we must first determine who is here and give them aspirations of citizenship, I am wondering how this fits with his declaration of being anti-amnesty. Huckabee and Bush have also stated that they are anti-amnesty and illegals must go “to the end of the line”, but, at the same time would be willing to allow illegals to ‘touchback’ and return, not having to wait at the end of the line in their home country. This may be what Fred has in mind for (non-criminal?) illegal aliens. Even Romney’s answer was more specific than Freds. Bottom line, he’s keeping everyone guessing on exactly what he means. I just don’t trust him.