I consider myself Independent as a voter, and really like some of what Ron Paul has to say. However, I am strugling with what I see as a contradiction:
He supports a return to Constitutional Government. He supports the right to bare arms and, and says he agrees with the second amendment.
However, he would take away birth right citizenship as part of his immigration reform. This seems hypocritical to me, as the 14th Amendment provides for this right.
So is he picking and choosing which Constitutional rights he likes? Can he really run on a platform of return to Constatutionalism? Do you agree or disagree with me?
2007-12-14 03:57:24 · 7 answers · asked by Ten Years Gone 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
On his web site he says you should not be a citizen just because you are born on U.S. soil. However, this is a constitutional right, regardless of what your parents status is. I'm asking if he is contradicting his own stance.
I really do respect the guy. Not trying to be cute here. Just want some opinions.
2007-12-14 04:09:45 · update #1
the fourteenth amendment was made in order to make sure slaves during the civil war were citizens -giving them a reason to fight for the north - it was not intended for someone who entered this country breaking its laws and them rewarding them - so therefore now that the civil war is over it should be amended to state babies of legal immigrants in this country have birthright citizenship -not ones who have broken the law
2007-12-14 04:06:30 · answer #1 · answered by rooster 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Our Country and the constitution derives it's success from it's ability to change and keep relevant. The Bill of Rights was added to our constitution, along with amendments.
When the times change, our laws need to change too.
Constitutional government does not eliminate the ability to make changes, but any laws enacted need to respect the 'current' constitution.
The authors of the 14th amendment could not have anticipated that a huge uncontrolled demographic shift would happen to our country, and birth right citizenship would become a magnet for pregnant illegal immigrants.
The right to bear arms is fundamental to our freedom, so citizens can defend themselves against their own government !
2007-12-14 04:47:25 · answer #2 · answered by Doug G 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You've got to remember the original intent of the 14th amendment. It was to give former slaves (who under previous law weren't even considered human, much less citizens) the same rights as everyone else. It wasn't intended to grant citizenship to every illegal alien who dropped a baby on our shores. He's a strict constitutionalist on this one, believe you me!
2007-12-16 12:19:00 · answer #3 · answered by texasjewboy12 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
can you give more detail about this "taking away birth right citizenship" I have not seen this before..
oh you mean if a mexican comes across the border illegally and pregnant and has the baby, the child is a citizen
that is questionable
2007-12-14 04:03:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
Maybe he wants to free America of the overload of illegals and overabundance of immigrants from Mexico in general. The taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for these people.
2007-12-14 04:02:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
right, he's taking about illegal immigrants.
if you steal something from someone, and then give it to somebody else, does that mean the item shouldn't be returned to the proper owner?
2007-12-14 04:22:18 · answer #6 · answered by JL 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It doesn't provide this right for illegal immigrants, if that's what you're getting at. It's for Americans.
2007-12-14 04:03:25 · answer #7 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 7⤊ 4⤋