Red Dog Report, Weasel Zippers, and the Washington Times all – gleefully, as well they should – report that Harry Reid introduced legislation that would have ended birthright citizenship in 1993. This makes Reid’s recent declaration that he couldn’t understand why any Hispanic could destroy his son in the polls be a Republican seem a bit… what’s the word? Nuanced? Contradictory? I’ve got it: “hypocritical.”
Seriously, there’s no wiggle room in the language that he introduced:
TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED. In the exercise of its powers under section 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 title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen 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 physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.
Now, I happen to oppose ending birthright citizenship. I’ve always opposed ending birthright citizenship, and I don’t think that I will ever stop oppose ending birthright citizenship* – no matter how unpopular taking that stance makes me. So it gives me no little pleasure to note that this makes me fundamentally different than Harry Reid, who is being a hypocritical, duplicitous, and quite possibly racist suckweasel on this issue; I add ‘quite possibly racist‘ because it’s entirely possible that Harry Reid tried this trick because he doesn’t believe that Hispanics know how to read…
Moe Lane
*Concentrate on the issue at hand. The Democrats would rather you focused not on Reid’s hypocrisy, but instead my lack of it. Don’t oblige them.
Crossposted to RedState.
What’s your reasoning behind opposition to ending birthright citizenship? Just want to understand. I figure you’ve thought about it and have a good reason.
I’d like to see it end because I believe it provides the wrong incentive to come here. I definitely think along with making it very, very difficult to come, stay & work here illegally we need to reform the process of being able to legally come to America. I also think we can talk about both things at the same time. We just need to actually do both things rather than just talking about them.
I don’t want the legislature to have any flexibility at all in deciding who gets to be a citizen. With ‘at all’ framed in twenty-foot tall letters of fire and Cherenkov radiation.
Jeffrey:
I think the problem is that it penalizes the children for the actions of their parents. Unless you are a naturalized citizen, you are a citizen because you were born here, plain and simple.
I understand that people have taken advantage of the law, not doubt about that but I am not sure that is an excuse to do away with it.
Terrye, as long as you are willing to pay all the costs (including serving as the designated victim of the many criminal offenses that result) of your enlightened attitude, and stay the H*ll out of my pocket, I don’t suppose I care.