There are always constitutional ways to bypass an amendment by repealing it.. Make a 28th (or 29th?) amendment “fixing” the 14th Amendment and bring it to the Congress and the people…

Simple .. right?

Let the people decide.

Good luck with that demented moron.

He is all yours, gNOpigs.

sock alert

Totally agree.Our current occupier of the white house is against letting the people decide, though.

Did you see that Mediaite feature above showcasing

George Will: Deporting All Illegal Immigrants Is Never Going To Happen

VideoBut Ron Paul and all the other racists want to deform the Constitution.Go ahead and try that.

George Will is the decider? Snort some more meth, patsy

It’s usually not wise to have the majority make rules for minorities.. the majority can easily write-off the problems of the minorites because it doesn’t experience them.

Ron Paul is the one, TEXAN, opening his stupid mouth.
 
About SOMETHING even his FOLLOWERS don’t support.

But keep defending the racist element in the gNOPigs, Jeffy.

Everyone in congress is against letting people decide, except during elections.. 

And Paul is the whack job libs support!

LMAO

I do agree with that.. Which is why I myself am against changing the 14th Amendment. But then again, For an Amendment to be put on ballot, it has to go through the Congress first..

Birthright citizenship was put into the constitution to address the problem of slaves being considered chattel.  It was put there to protect citizen rights of the children of slaves and Indians it was not intended for people to illegally enter the country to give birth and subvert the immigration process.  This as with all constitutional rights should not be changed without an amendment to the constitution…  

This article’s title is misleading.  Paul never said anything about opposing 14th Amendment, the discussion was about the interpretation of this Amendment and its jurisdiction to illegal immigrants.

Also, the article is incorrect in stating that ending birthright citizenship is not part of Paul’s immigration platform.  Paul stated both in his book (Liberty Defined) and in multiple interviews that he doesn’t believe we should have birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because it gives them the incentive to come here illegally.

Ron Paul might as well put on his birfher hat.

This is exactly what you birfher wingnut morons were bit ching about, whether President ObamCa had been born “properly” in the USA.

Now, you ignorant racist gNOpigs. A CITIZEN, CANNOT APPLY TO immigrate his/her parents until the age of 18 and showing proper financial support.

The other side of the argument is, those kids should not have any legal standing.

So, go ahead, racist gNOpigs. Start raiding elementary schools and demand EVERY KID, not only the Mexican-looking ones, show their papers, and their parent’s too.

See how you like that.

I thought the undocumented immigrants came to the states to steal your jobs.

So, what is it?

First they steal your job, then they have babies, then they speak Spanish, then they take their country back?

I still like Ron Paul a lot.

The Constitution was designed to allow for changes. The 14th Amendment is one that if we don’t change, America is finished. It’s probably too late already. It doesn’t have to be, though; if we have the will to stand up to the media, academic and corporate elite.

Immigration laws are always designed on who to keep out of the country.. rather than who to get in. Always been that way and always will be. 

As for the welfare state…we love to keep our govt uninvolved in everything.. except when it helps us. The government simply reflects our characters and our qualities.. so maybe its the people that have to change.. not the government.

That’s not necessary. E-verify works, which is why the left and corporate right oppose it.

A good portion of them come here to steal anything they can or worse…

Ron Paul, giving new meaning to the terms “old” and “crazy”… are they still allowing Ron to drive a car with his type 4 dementia??

Of course, This is coming from a dittohead who hides like a coward. So you kind of have to put these words in perspective

whoislloydc@gmail.com

I usually support Dr. Ron Paul on almost everything, but I think he’s wrong here. Unless an illegal immigrant is a friggin’ foreign diplomat, they are under the jurisdiction of the United States and any child they may bare is an American citizen. If we don’t like that, then we amend the Constitution instead of doing what Progressives do — which is completely disregard the word of constitutional law and baselessly say the Constitution has “evolved” to their viewpoint.

I also support complete amnesty and massively deregulated immigration (basically just do a criminal background check, that’s it). BUT, I only support it if we completely dismantle out unnecessary, oppressive, and exploitative welfare entitlement state. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare — they all need to be dismantled immediately. If we get rid of these unnecessary exploitative programs which attack our liberty, we eliminate the possibility of immigrants coming here to live off of naturalize citizens. (Not to mention eliminate A WHOLE lotta other things!) Then their only incentive to be here will be to enjoy their natural right to have an opportunity to decide — and risk — their own station in life. Guest worker cards are automatically granted so we can deduct taxes immediately, and after 6 years they are granted the ability to apply for citizenship and all the benefits and responsibilities that come with it.

Jeffy, did you ever fall on your head? Perhaps its’ Tourette’s Syndrome? Considering most adults of even slight intelligence would never call other adults “gNOpigs” I have to conclude either you are a child or a special needs person.

I wouldn’t mind helping immigrants; it’s just, how will we continue to afford it all the social programs they benefit from? We can’t even take care of our own, let alone new people. I do think Paul’s fiscally conservative ideas are better than anything we’ve had so far. He gets my vote.

Paw-Paw haw ha ha ha ha…

Although your view can/has been viewed as correct.  So can Ron Paul’s interpredation can also be

“During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludesNative Americans who maintain their tribal ties and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875 Congessional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session …
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

Stay tuned, Ron Paul is sure to add other Constitutional amendments to his list to which he does not agree.

Ron Paul’s supposed dementia is less dangerous than Obama’s metal illness….
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/32695-obama-showing-signs-of-delusions-mental-illness
LOL, this is a good one.

I carry a valid driver’s license, S.S.I. Card, and other forms of ID….

Showing them to proper authorities doesn’t bother me at all…I do it all the time.

do it

They should have put a sunset clause in it, much like they left an exception to the “Born in America” rule for Presidential eligibility for those in the country when the Constitution was adopted. It was necessary at the time, but it isn’t any longer.

And who the hell are you? The famous Lloyd C? Never heard of you.

It’s one thing to call Dr. Paul old, but he is hardly demented by any standards.  He’s quite sharp mentally, and if he was the slightest bit demented, he would never have come up the the level of national popularity he has done. 

Wrong tack questioning Paul’s positions on ground that he might not get certain votes. This anti-Iraq, anti-Awlaki killing congressman Paul. He probably was anti-Osama assassination but wisely piped up due to the sensitivity and nature of OBL’s status in this country

damn…..you baggers are a shameful bunch of gawd damn racists…..still stuck in 1850

You know this because.?? oh, it’s just your opinion? 

I can name a few mentally challenged individuals with a lot of popularity. Just sayin.. 

Ron Paul’s philosophy is a pipe dream. It would mean a total and complete destruction of the Unites States to rebuild it in his image. I don’t know about you people, but I don’t want this country to fall on its face anytime soon. 

Original intent is a crock of shit quite frankly. It doesn’t matter what the authors of an amendment intended, it matters what We The People voted on and we voted on just the text. The Constitution belongs to us, not them. You don’t get pages and pages of debates when We The People vote on amendment to the Constitution; we just get the amendment text at its face value. The 14th Amendment quite clearly says that any person born under the jurisdiction of the United States is an American citizen. If we didn’t want children of foreign nationals — legal, illegal, or guests — to be citizens then we should’ve actually said that in the Amendment, but we didn’t so it’s not the law of the land.

“Original intent” is just as much of a weasel tactic as when Progressives and Socialists say the Constitution should be a “living document”. All are meant to undermine the word of the Constitution and vicariously undermine We The People.

Original LANGUAGE is an important principle to keep in mind when interpreting the Constitution, although I’m not exactly sure that it the official name of the concept. The language at the time of the ratifying of the Constitution or an amendment is very important. Just because our language may change over time does not mean the law changes. Perfect example of this is the 2nd Amendment and the word “militia”, even if that is a waste of time since that disputed term is in the preamble of the amendment and is therefore not law. And as far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, many people may have been racist back then but it was generally understood that illegal aliens were still considered persons.

The United States WAS built in the image of his political philosophy if you actually knew anything about history. Implementing his philosophy would mean a destruction of the American Empire, the welfare entitlement state, and corporate welfare and a restoration of liberty, individual responsibility, and property rights.

Yeah I know, liberty, responsibility, and property rights are just sooooo repugnant, huh.

Go visit your local jail or prison and get back 2 me…chock full of illegals.

You’re laughing because you consider the man that represents traditional purist conservative values to be too far left for you to support?  Actually, that is funny….to me, not sure why you would be laughing.

does anybody know about the atrocities our government and cia have done to south american countries?  such as ahem.. Venezuela 2002/03 (trying to overthrow Chavez (which is a great democratically elected leader) with dictators because he wouldnt give the us oil) – Guatemala, El Salvador, Jamaica, Cuba and many many many more.  please read more into this if you dont know… it will make you sick.with Ron Paul in office there would be no more tyranny abroad.  we wouldn’t be forcing out leaders that dont comply with our demands with dictators that ruin their country.  this alone should get every vote from citizens that came from south of the united states.  

What?!! The issue is, illegal alien parasites being given citizenship built on a corruption of the 14th Amendment by a 1896 Supreme Court decision. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment is clear and unambiguous to any reasonable person. It took the Supreme Court to come up with legal-fiction to alter the real meaning of the clause. It’s passed time, this corruption was corrected and our immigration laws strictly enforced!

Deform what? Is asking that the original intent of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause be recognized, being deforming?! Read the the clause, and then tell us, where the hell it says that the child of an illegal alien born in a country that does not have ” full-jurisdiction” constitute legal citizenship?!!

Your right, the children of illegal alien parasites should have NO standing as a legal citizen. It’s ridiculous to even suggest they should. Alabama is now demanding proof of citizenship from every student. Their school roles are quickly lowering as the illegal alien parasites are leaving Alabama in droves, and off of the free ride they thought they were going to get.

Shame on the illegal alien parasites themselves, and for putting their children in an illegal position. What ever harm the children of the illegal alien parasites think they are experiencing is directly attributable to their parents, and no one else.

The correction needed can be done by simple Legislation in Congress and does not need a Constitutional Amendment. The problem is, we have too many politicians beholding to illegal employer money. In California, state employees are now being forced to take a furlough day to save money. This moronic state government would rather shaft the legal working citizens than do the right thing and force illegal aliens out of our state’s social welfare programs that are now exceeding a $25-Billion dollar deficit annually, and all directly attributable to illegal alien parasites!!

Why don’t you look up the original intent of the citizenship clause, and read what the author of that clause intended it to mean. The intent is clear, ANYONE born here, not under the full jurisdiction of the United States, is not a legal citizen. It’s plain, it’s clear, and any reasonable person reading it knows exactly what it was intended to mean.

Original intent is a crock?!! What was voted on, IS THE ORIGINAL INTENT, not what you think it might mean, or what you want it to mean, it says what it says because that’s they way it was intended to be read, and interpreted by the Courts. Anything else is a corruption…geese, get it right!!

The majority of this country does not agree with the Courts corruption of the citizenship clause. Citizenship based on geographical birth alone is ridiculous on it’s face. No other industrialized country in the world recognizes it!

And as usual, Liberals will cut off their nose to spite their face. When faced with commonsense and reason they are dumbfounded and can’t recognize the obvious even when it’s slapping them in the face.

What’s that suppose to mean?

What the hell does that have to do with the corruption of the citizenship clause by the Courts, and getting that corruption….corrected?

sounds good to me