Mark Levin defends Rand Paul over new controversy

Wow, Rand Paul really stepped in it this time. I mean, you really won’t believe this.

I mean really.

Rand Paul….I can’t even get this out….wants children born in the USA from illegal immigrants to be ineligible for citizenship. In other words, this birthright citizenship needs to go away!

Oh the humanity!!!!!!!!!

UPDATE: Cubachi has a good writeup on why the Constitution doesn’t support ‘birthright citizenship’. Be sure and check it out.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Wanna watch a lib's head explode? Ask them if an illegal alien should be able to stay in the U.S. because their Unborn Baby was conceived in the U.S.

    – The Cat

  • KeninMontana

    I have heard of this being brought up by several commentators and politicos over the last month or so. They refer to them as “anchor babies”. I have a friend who was the son of mid-level diplomats,he was born in Germany when his parents were stationed at the US Embassy. He was born in a civilian hospital. From my understanding of his situation he held dual-citizenship until his eighteenth birthday at which time he had to choose which he would declare for, he chose US citizenship. I don't claim to be any kind of legal expert on this, however again to my understanding even if he had chose to claim his German citizenship it would not give his parents any legal rights for them to then go for some special treatment to stay in Germany,the special status was extended to him alone. To me this sounds like a logical solution to the “anchor baby” issue here,grant the baby dual citizenship until they reach the age of majority at which time they must chose, at the same time this would confer no special protective status to the parents, ie if they are here illegaly and caught they and their child are deported to their country of origin.Just a thought..

  • jd73

    Why would that make a lib's head explode? They should obviously be sent back to their home country. What does conception matter in regard to citizenship?

  • jd73

    I don't think Rand Paul's comments here should be perceived as crazy or racist, but they are still wrong. A country's citizenship laws says a lot about what type of country it is. A country that favors “jus sanguinis” obviously has a different philosophy and mind set as one that favors “jus soli.” Here in America, a country founded by immigrants, we obviously go for “jus soli.” Legal precedent states that if you're born on U.S. soil, you're a U.S. citizen, and the blood of your parents doesn't have any bearing on that fact.

    So, Rand Paul's idea is both wrong and unhelpful. Our immigration laws aren't perfect, but this ain't the way to fix it.

  • Whether a country favors “Rights, by blood” or “Rights, on the whole” (loose translation, but overall correct for the context it was given)… REGARDLESS of the particular philosophy on the:

    1. Genesis
    2. Extent
    3. Appropriation

    of “rights” ~ the OVERRIDING PRINCIPLE of “secundum Lex” (since you seem enamored with the Latin of things), or “ACCORDING TO THE LAW” of that land/country… is UNIVERSALLY understood to still be the starting point of understanding ALL other principles particular to that country/land.

    Point?

    …just that, being here ~ ILLEGALLY ~ in the first place, negates ANY claim to “right of birth” thereafter.

    Wish to test the efficacy of that statement (or the fortitude of any “conviction” one might claim to hold on the matter)?

    Fine, then let someone (anyone, from an illegal alien, to your own sister in law) slip into your house ~ UNannounced, UNinvited ~ have a baby… ANYWHERE in your house (living room, laundry room, hall closet) ~ and then claim that, through that child… they have FULL LEGAL RIGHTS to EVERYTHING YOU OWN.

    Sound crazy?

    …yes, I thought so too.

    CM Sackett

    Oh, and as for the whole “legal precedent” thing… see both, my comment on “illegal” negation, and U.S. codes pertaining to “legal” status (birth or otherwise).

  • Jojode

    I don't understand why people don't understand the word ILLEGAL!!!!!
    An illegal alien is not an immigrant. An illegal alien is one that broke into our house and continues to rob us of anything they can get. ILLEGAL is an ILLEGAL not an immigrant.

  • rabcf1

    This is common reasoning in the laws of nations for at least 250 years. American citizenship should be considered valuable and highly prized, earned with sweat and blood of your forefathers. Or earned, then awarded citizenship for learning english, our history and contributing value to it. After a lifetime of building,stocking and securing a home for your family, would you take me in and care for me just because I jumped your fence and showed up on your doorstep.OH! but there children. Yes, children of criminals who in most cases, came not to contribute but to gain the benifets, # 1 being birth paid for by the children of men who loved, built and often died for it. I concider US citizenship more vauluble than gold! You may not.

  • rabcf1

    absolutly!

  • rabcf1

    DAAAA!

  • rabcf1

    Again, why can't you understand illegal? The laws arn't that bad there just not enforced at all.

  • jd73

    Good point.

  • jd73

    Yes, and I didn't mention giving citizenship to illegal immigrants. However, if these same illegals give birth to a kid in the U.S., that kid would be a U.S. citizen according to our laws.

    Mark Levin's point about tourists and diplomats is simply not true, by the way. If a tourist, or a diplomat, has a kid here, then that child is eligible for U.S. citizenship. It's a pretty simple rule. But if Rand Paul really wants to stand up against the blight of Mexicans invading Kentucky, by all means he can continue to shove his foot in his mouth. At this rate he'll have to continue to cancel his media appearances until November…

  • jd73

    Yes, what you wrote does sound crazy. We can agree on that part at least.

  • jd73

    I greatly value my U.S. citizenship. And you know what I did to “earn” it? I was born in the U.S. I didn't need to take a test, or pay a special fee, or prove my worth as a human. No, I was just lucky to be in the best country in the world when I dropped from the womb. That's how our laws work. If you don't like that they extend to the children of illegal Mexicans, then you're welcome to try to amend the Constitution and reverse a couple hundred years of legal precedent.

  • davidegregory

    It is a pretty strong statement to claim someone of Mark's legal standing is wrong in regard to the children of tourists and diplomats having citizenship, or even being eligible for it. Can you cite any evidence for your statement? I am interested in learning more.

  • SethConsoliver

    Umm, your off by more than 50 years pal (Civil War was more like 150 years ago), and your just plain wrong saying that the illegal-alien anchor baby policy is good for this country. Remember, the 14th amendment birth-citizenship clause was written for the purpose of ensuring citizenship for the newborns of freed slaves. It is now being used for purposes completely contrary to its original intent.

    Also, many libertarians are hardly accepting Rand Paul because he is VERY moderate for a libertarian. You guys who don't like him really don't get it that our founders were essentially libertarian. The difference between modern conservatives and libertarians is that libertarians are CONSISTENT in what they believe, and what they believe in is liberty.

    Also, I notice that the most idiotic comments are usually posted by those who know the least. I've noticed this time and time again that the ill-informed are more likely to speak with a misplaced sense of authority on issues that they know just very little about.

  • SethConsoliver

    Also, you didn't have to work for citizenship because your parents were citizens (am I wrong?). If the illegals would become citizens, well then this wouldn't even be an issue because their child's citizenship status would be legitimately assured. Oh and don't give us your crappy, irrelevant life story – as if that proves you have experience on this issue.

  • jd73

    The Civil War? What are you talking about? Was that when the U.S. Constitution was written?

    I won't give you my crappy irrelevant life story, but you did ask if my parents were citizens. No, they weren't. One is Mexican, and one is a Muslin. Neither have become citizens, and they don't speak English. Oh, and I'm also a socialist.

  • KeninMontana

    The 14th Amendment was ratified July 9,1868. The US Constitution was ratified September 17,1787.

  • Anonymous

    I suppose that you don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Constitution, right? Like the words: “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.” I always thought that “born … in the United States” meant “born … in the United States.”

  • Pingback: A Short Guide To Mark Levin, Trump’s Likely Source For His Wiretapping Lie « RichCulbertson.com()