I am loving Rand Paul. This is sorely needed. To long this country has been a haven for illegal immigrants to give birth and get a foothold in this country. This amendment will fix one of the biggest problems with illegal immigration today.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/140723-sens-paul-and-vitter-introduce-citizenship-resolution?utm_campaign=briefingroom&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterfeed

Rand Paul (Ky.) and David Vitter (La.) are introducing a resolution this week that would amend the Constitution so that a person born in the United States could only become an American citizen if one or more of his or her parents is a legal citizen, legal immigrant or member of the armed forces, according to a joint press release Thursday

There were over 300K illegal immigrant births in the U.S. in 2008.

Pew estimates 340,000 of the 4.3 million newborns in U.S. hospitals in 2008 belonged to illegal immigrant parents. In total, 4 million U.S.-born, citizen children of illegal immigrants currently live in the country, according to the study.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birthright-citizenship-study-sheds-light-illegal-immigrants-children/story?id=11376791

He can try, I'm on the fence on it (no pun intended), but it will never pass the states.

ptown_trojans_1;655924 wrote:He can try, I'm on the fence on it (no pun intended), but it will never pass the states.

Explain please

So Paul is notable for introducing unpassable legislation so far.

I Wear Pants;656118 wrote:So Paul is notable for introducing unpassable legislation so far.

So, that's the goal we want Congress to strive for? Don't try and fix our problems, just come up with something that will easily pass?

tk421;656121 wrote:So, that's the goal we want Congress to strive for? Don't try and fix our problems, just come up with something that will easily pass?

For the left following the path of least resistance is always the best option.

I'd like them to do the best to fix our problems with realistic measures.

Tossing out $5 budgets and things doesn't help anyone.

Believer, do you notice how I don't underhandedly insult you?

I Wear Pants;656123 wrote:I'd like them to do the best to fix our problems with realistic measures.

Tossing out $5 budgets and things doesn't help anyone.

Believer, do you notice how I don't underhandedly insult you?

What exactly would realistically fix this problem? They've already shown they are not capable or willing to secure the border. Over 300K illegal immigrant births a year, over 4-5M illegal immigrant children not including their families here. We will never stem the tide flowing over the border if all they have to do is give birth in this country to remain forever.

The State of Kentucky is now introducing a Bill into their own house to require unemployment benefit recipients to pass a random drug test in order to continue to receive benefits. This type of legislation was once thought "unpassable". It's carrying a 92% approval of the citizens og Kentucky right now.

The greatest leaders have the ability to take very gray issues and make them black & white. Senator Paul does that and in the process continues to place a microscope over top of a very serious issue.

I'm not saying I disagree with the amendment but I do find it interesting that the side which conveys the founding fathers as infallible and proclaims to hold the Constitution in such high regard seems to want to alter it the most.

BoatShoes;656134 wrote:I'm not saying I disagree with the amendment but I do find it interesting that the side which conveys the founding fathers as infallible and proclaims to hold the Constitution in such high regard seems to want to alter it the most.

BoatShoes, I certainly would want to hear how Paul and Vitter believe this issue is best served by altering the Constitution, rather than by simply enforcing our borders. Even if it passes, what really changes if the borders remain as porous as they are today?

If the Federal Government would have followed the Constitution to the letter and protected our borders and citizens, provide the resources to the bording states, security and legal power to prevent illegal’s from entering our country. We would not have this problem now….


The problem with Politicians they think they are better and smarter that the writers of the Constitution and the Constitution it self, when in fact they are not. It is harder and difficult to commit to the writing of the Constitution that it is to waver for personal and political gain.

Belly35;656152 wrote:If the Federal Government would have followed the Constitution to the letter and protected our borders and citizens, provide the resources to the bording states, security and legal power to prevent illegal’s from entering our country. We would not have this problem now….


The problem with Politicians they think they are better and smarter that the writers of the Constitution and the Constitution it self, when in fact they are not. It is harder and difficult to commit to the writing of the Constitution that it is to waver for personal and political gain.

Isn't that what Paul and Vitter are doing here?

believer;656115 wrote:Explain please

I don't see enough states ratifying it if it passes the Congress, which it won't pass the Senate.

BCBulldog;656156 wrote:Isn't that what Paul and Vitter are doing here?

Now there is only IMO three options:
The first is to search and finded all the illegal and send them back ...ASAP children included "Can I see your papers"
Second is to provide a 30 day to file for citizenship and 90 day to complete the requirement for citizenship or get the hell out ...... after that "Search, and Send back"
Third introducing a resolution that would amend the Constitution so that a person born in the United States could only become an American citizen if one or more of his or her parents is a legal citizen, legal immigrant or member of the armed forces. " those are the rule and the law of the land deal with it.

Belly35;656226 wrote:Now there is only IMO three options:
The first is to search and finded all the illegal and send them back ...ASAP children included "Can I see your papers"
Second is to provide a 30 day to file for citizenship and 90 day to complete the requirement for citizenship or get the hell out ...... after that "Search, and Send back"
Third introducing a resolution that would amend the Constitution so that a person born in the United States could only become an American citizen if one or more of his or her parents is a legal citizen, legal immigrant or member of the armed forces. " those are the rule and the law of the land deal with it.

Option 1 would destabilize and certainily lead to the fall of Mexico. Millions deported to Mexico, a country's economy that could not handle it, would descend into chaos. The druglords would take advantage and we would see a failed state right next door to us, and that would be a disaster.
Plus, I'm not a fan of Americans rounding up people in masses. It just doesn't seem to be the American way.

Option 2 I would support if it was a longer period given how many people would apply. I would support 6 months and 1 year.

Option 3 as I said, I go back and forth on. France is one country that has established the birth rule, and it is a huge issue as it has alienated a whole community.

Belly35;656226 wrote:Now there is only IMO three options:
The first is to search and finded all the illegal and send them back ...ASAP children included "Can I see your papers"
Second is to provide a 30 day to file for citizenship and 90 day to complete the requirement for citizenship or get the hell out ...... after that "Search, and Send back"
Third introducing a resolution that would amend the Constitution so that a person born in the United States could only become an American citizen if one or more of his or her parents is a legal citizen, legal immigrant or member of the armed forces. " those are the rule and the law of the land deal with it.

None of these ideas mean jack unless the borders are secured. I'm not sure we even need new laws. Enforcing the ones we already have would solve the entire problem. Even if Paul and Vitter were successful with their proposed Amendment, they would come off like Baghdad Bob without an enforced and secure border.

What this will do, if it fails in the Senate, will clearly divide the parties on this issue. The left will be seen as fostering illegal immigration, while the right will be seen as trying to fix a problem that has plagued us for a long time.

As for the Constitution question: There is no way the Founding Fathers could have foreseen the type of shoddy border security and resulting flood of illegals that has taken place. For that reason alone, I have no problem with attempting an amendment and still maintain the integrity of the original document.

And PTown: I have no problem rounding up groups of people when, by law, they aren't Americans and aren't supposed to be here. We round up large groups of criminals regularly when breaking up drug cartels and the like, and I see this as no different.

Writerbuckeye;656320 wrote:...

And PTown: I have no problem rounding up groups of people when, by law, they aren't Americans and aren't supposed to be here. We round up large groups of criminals regularly when breaking up drug cartels and the like, and I see this as no different.

Heck, we've even rounded up groups of people that were legal citizens here and held them.

Seems we could certainly justify rounding up those that are not legal.

Writerbuckeye;656320 wrote:What this will do, if it fails in the Senate, will clearly divide the parties on this issue. The left will be seen as fostering illegal immigration, while the right will be seen as trying to fix a problem that has plagued us for a long time.

As for the Constitution question: There is no way the Founding Fathers could have foreseen the type of shoddy border security and resulting flood of illegals that has taken place. For that reason alone, I have no problem with attempting an amendment and still maintain the integrity of the original document.

And PTown: I have no problem rounding up groups of people when, by law, they aren't Americans and aren't supposed to be here. We round up large groups of criminals regularly when breaking up drug cartels and the like, and I see this as no different.

I agree on that scale.
However, this would be massive, millions total, which would include holding areas that would be huge, especially in the southwest to process and then move them to deportation. Also who would do it, the National Guard? Do we want National Guard troops moving in our cities searching for people?
I don't know, I just think it would like all the holding cells like the movie "The Siege".

Writerbuckeye;656320 wrote:What this will do, if it fails in the Senate, will clearly divide the parties on this issue. The left will be seen as fostering illegal immigration, while the right will be seen as trying to fix a problem that has plagued us for a long time.

As for the Constitution question: There is no way the Founding Fathers could have foreseen the type of shoddy border security and resulting flood of illegals that has taken place. For that reason alone, I have no problem with attempting an amendment and still maintain the integrity of the original document.

Dividing Congress and amending the Constitution do exactly what to fix the border problem?

Con_Alma;656327 wrote:Heck, we've even rounded up groups of people that were legal citizens here and held them.

Seems we could certainly justify rounding up those that are not legal.

While I also have no problem with deporting illegal aliens, I'm not sure I would use our history of McCarthyism as a means for justification. But like I said above, without a secure border, don't waste the effort (and money) to deport the illegals. It's like trying to bail out a sinking boat with a strainer.

Justification?? Hmmm. Hope that's not really what you took from my post.

I'm wondering how many illegals would flee the country on their own if it was being decided to do a massive round up, and the deadline was nearing?

Con_Alma;656340 wrote:Justification?? Hmmm. Hope that's not really what you took from my post.

Of course not, I thought I made that pretty clear.

BCBulldog;656347 wrote:Of course not, I thought I made that pretty clear.

...just not clear enough for me. Thank's for doing so.