Huckabee vows to defy birthright citizenship - Wants to change US Constitution

Huckabee vows to defy birthright citizenship

Mike Huckabee wants to change the US Constitution to prevent children born to illegal, what do you think?

1.

I think it is rather brazen move, considering his history of supporting illegal immigration as governor of Arkansas. He is opening himself to attack from the other Republicans.

2.

Many legal scholars state the 14th amendment grants citizenship to children born in the US of non-citizens. However, it is obvious the original intent of the amendment was to grant citizenship and equal protection to African American descendants born of parents previously held captive under slavery.

I think he's a loon. Fortunately, it has been pretty hard to change the constitution based on whatever political whim comes along.

So here's a question. If they're not US citizens, then they won't get birth certificates. Now, how many illegal immigrants are going to bother going back to their own country to get birth certificates for their new born? So there will be all these kids wandering around the US with no official record that they exist.

*I'm not arguing for or against the reform, just curious as to the fall-out of such a move.

They are already here. Parts of the US have been identified *cough* Miami *cough* as one of the major importers of sex slaves in the world. That was about two decades back, but if you have been down there lately, it wouldn't surprise you any.

From the same article

Quote:

---

"I would make it my first act as president to pardon agents Ramos and Compean," Mr. Gilchrist said Mr. Huckabee told him. "I regret that they have spent yet another Christmas locked up in a windowless cell like animals and unable to be free and with their families."

---

Now, there are of course two sides to every argument, (such as this one http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ramos_compean/ ), but I find it disturbing that any president should so casually bandy about circumventing the legal system (don't even get me started on Scooter Libby! or Clintons last days). If these men have been wrongly accused, then they will get their day in (appeals) court. But from what I see, they probably should be in prison.

One point in that article was particularly interesting: At one point a Canada-US-Mexico unified state was mentioned as a fear of some folks. Frankly, anybody who ever played Risk sees the obvious tactical advantages of such a union, but this turns out to be a question that can be studied. The people who should be most disturbed by such a union would be nationalists, xenophobes, and a variety of smaller groups. Those same categories probably exist in all countries to some extent. What has been the reaction to the EU by such groups in Europe?

In fairness, I don't see Canada going for it. They might have in previous years, in fact when I came to Canada, many people where arguing that we should build a joint currency with the US to make trade easier (realistically that would mean us adopting the US dollar).

But with only one tenth of the US population, this would mean that Canada would be effectively surrendering control of it's economy and the safety of it's citizens to whomever the US voted into power. This may have been acceptable ten years ago, but our mate George W. has opened many Canadians eyes as to what can happen when an absolute idiot/war monger gets elected, and I don't think you will find many Canadians who would be willing to run the risk that another such individual would be put in power.

Sad, but true.

If this change in the contitution pans out, can we make it severely retroactive and kick everyone out of the country who isn't full blooded Native American?

i voted yes !

because i can and unfortunelty i can't vote in the US, i can't even vote in Scotland either !! (not registered)

you all take this stuff realy seriously !!

dav

This really is a desperate attempt by huck to save his campaign. He knows that this would never recieve the votes needed in either house to actually pass, so its more hot air than anything else.

oh and by the way, Mark if the giants can beat the patriots i'll buy you a beer.

Coming from southern NH, not far from Foxboro, I have now found something else that I disagree with Mark on. Should be a great game, though. Had the Pats lost earlier, I would have been rooting for GB, simply because it's good to see an old guy doing well. I was cheering for Vinny earlier in the season.

I think with McCaine's win in SC, Huckabee is in decline, and probably sunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SurfDemon

In fairness, I don't see Canada going for it.
Sad, but true.

---

Since Canada is our #1 source of oil - you canucks will be ok for a very long time - at least until the greenies ban oil.

"Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in November, exporting 2.428 million barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2.411 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Mexico with 1.581 million barrels per day." -US DEPT OF ENERGY

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html

Quote:

---

What has been the reaction to the EU by such groups in Europe?

---

Outright resistance toward anything that smacks of a European super state (to use the vernacular) - and it's not just those at the extremes either, most of the middle ground is against any further steps toward a federated Europe.

Personally I'm a natural Europhile and quite like the idea of a European state but the way it's been implemented so far has been so poorly handled that even I'd resist it in it's current form too. The most obvious example was that the European constitution was rejected in the very few referendums that were held (and we didn't get them without a fight), so now we've got a European treaty which contains all the same clauses as the proposed constitution but we're told that, honestly, it's different, look, it's a treaty not a constitution... and no, you can't have a referendum on it because it's not a constitutional change and treaty's have been ratified before without the need for one. If you combine that sort of disregard for public opinion with the fact that we have almost no control over who would sit in any European parliament it's hardly surprising that the concept meets with so much resistance.

So you're getting federalized through the back door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

So you're getting federalized through the back door.

---

The same thing happened to Britney Spears :eek:

I thought she got Federlined, not Federalized, but then, I don't keep up on celebrity news.