Posted on 01/31/2008 6:39:34 PM PST by BGHater
I don't know why birthright citizenship keeps tripping Mike Huckabee up, but it does.
He was asked at last night's debate whether he supports "making changes in the law" to end the policy, which says almost all children born in the U.S. are automatically citizens, even if they are born to illegal aliens. Here's his answer:
MR. HUCKABEE: I think the Supreme Court's already ruled on that. The real issue is, that doesn't fix the problem.
Compare that to what he told this blog 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. "I think that's a very reasonable thing to do, to revisit that."
Click here for audio of the conversation
And to what he said in a written statement last month:
"If the Supreme Court chooses to review lower-court decisions regarding the 14th Amendment, that is their prerogative, but my priorities for constitutional amendments are to protect human life and traditional marriage."
(Excerpt) Read more at video1.washingtontimes.com ...
Huckster completely dodged the question.
Duncan Hunter signed the Birthright Act Pledge in the US House
Let me give you an idea of what goes on. A tourist comes to the US with his 4 kids and his pregnant wife. Let's say that it's all legal and on the up and up. She gives birth.
The law here requires that they ADD THE CHILD TO THE FAMILY VISA LIST.
Yup, kid's born here yet he has to have a visa just as if he were a foreign citizen and not a US citizen.
US citizens, BTW, do not require a visa to visit the US.
At the same time if the family came here without a visa, or equivalent, and the situation is otherwise identical ~ they are tourists ~ sojourners ~ not permanent residents, there are those, e.g federal district courts, ICE analysts, and so on who will tell you the kid is now a citizen!
Which means, of course, that the law requires more of legal visitors than of illegal visitors, and not only that, the legal visitors' newborns ARE NOT US citizens, yet the illegal visitors' newborns ARE US citizens.
Obviously we need some changes in the law ~ and fast, and at the same time we need some friendly lawsuits to take this mess to court and ask WTF.
My own thoughts are that the immigration offices throughout the country have been in error by identifying childen born here of illegal aliens as citizens ~ and doing so by simply failing to note that the law still requires them to ADD THE KID TO THE FAMILY VISA.
We could immediately rescind the citizenship of several million "anchor babies" among other things.
Does the huckster have any ideal what the supreme court is?
Excellent observation . . . and to paraphrase Mr. Bumble (Oliver Twist): If the law thus suppose th, then the law is an ass and an idiot.
This has come up in a notorious case of a Mexican murderer who argued his rights were violated in his trial because he had not been notified he could contact his (Mexican) consulate.
Some Freepers want that treaty to be ignored and George Bush wants the treaty provisions recognized by the courts.
If the case is upheld by the courts, and the guy allowed to contact his consulate and then get retried, the implications are that NO MEXICAN can visit the United States and ever be under the jurisdiction of the United States per se.
That means no more Mexican anchor baby citizens.
ping
Legislation that should have passed
SECTION 1. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this Act to a mother who is neither a citizen or national of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a citizen or national of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a citizen or national, or is entitled upon application to become a citizen or national of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States.
This was introduced into the Republican Congress just prior to the inauguration of a Republican President....but what happened?
NOTHING.
The Republican Party has nowhere to look for blame except in the mirror.
But his pro-life so nothing else he does or says matters. Didn’t you get the memo?
Constitution of the United states, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
As frustrating as it may sound, a law rescinding citizenship for anchor babies would be considered ex post facto, and declared unconstitutional.
Tyson made him dodge it, among others.
This goes on all the time.
Administrative error may be corrected without respect to the ex post facto law prohibition.
Think of it like the title to your home. You get insurance just in case someone made an administrative error a couple of centuries ago.
Open borders out the wazoo. And yet, so many evangelicals are duped by this A-hole.
An administrative determination, such as an executive order, would be challenged in a lower court, and overturned.
The only way to strip citizenship away would be to amend the Constitution to clarify the language in the 14th Amendment.
Even so, it couldn’t be applied retroactively, in keeping with the prohibition of ex post facto laws.
Praise God and pass the ammunition. Meaning praise God but you must stay grounded in reality but his evangelical followers are yearning to be conned and duped and they found their con man!!! Huckster is in outer space. Huckster will say whatever Huckster will say with no connection to any reality Talk is cheap and Huck makes it even cheaper
The law will not have changed, just the perceived status of the individual who incorrectly acted on a mistaken belief.
This is ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS not JUDICIAL PROCESS. They are very different parts of "governing".
Further, as long as ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS has not been exhausted, there is neither an error in the initial determination, nor in the subsequent determination, to be appealed to a federal court. That would mean that once you've lost the citizenship you didn't really have in the first place you may then apply for immigration, and then citizenship. The door is open!
There are a myriad of steps to go through before you could even get close to the issue of "anchor baby", and by then both your purse and your time on this Earth would undoubtedly be exhausted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.