Discussion for article #239639
but said that people coming to the U.S. to give birth is a “legitimate issue.”
and this is the part where either Rubio or Harwood should have went further with this issue. There are clearly legitimate reasons as to why folks from other lands are still coming to this country (regardless of status).
However…such is the price of living in America.
1 Like
“Anchor babies – people are talking about anchor babies,” Harwood jumped into say.
I’m glad to hear he’s standing up to the extremist national wing of his party… on this issue at least. Too bad he lies down, or bends over (which you think is more appropriate) on all their other extremist views of the GOP.
5 Likes
A slight correction to the article, the 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to all people born in the United States, because it didn’t apply to Native Americans. Native Americans weren’t granted birthright citizenship until 1924 via the Indian Citizen Act of 1924.
8 Likes
Bet JEB wishes he’d said that. 
3 Likes
Repubs are in such a bizarre state that Rubio will likely have to overcome the poll hit of having called immigrants “people.”
10 Likes
He called them “human beings”?!@??? See? These people always stick together. Liberals!
1 Like
Marco Rubio will be back to calling them “anchor babies” by November 1.
1 Like
Talk about a dilemma,Marco is saying Hey they are talking about ME !!!
Well played, Senator. Well played.
Well, he’s done.
“But I’m mostly referring to Cuban anchor babies,” Mr. Rubio later clarified. “Dominicans and Mexicans, not so much.”
Set your watches - if polling results show potential - he will reverse direction & double down -
and refer to them as "Grappling Hook Babies"
1 Like
A rare moment of humanity from a Republican candidate.
I suspect it will hurt his chances.
Interesting … and a moment of inquiry here - does that mean that the Indian Citizen Act of 1924 could be utilized as a precedent for making modifications to the 14th Amendment?
- or would it legally be viewed as a sort of one-way mechanism in that you could clarify & expand a basic right via an “Act” - but not limit / exclude a group of people.
Doubtful. Native Americans weren’t considered covered under the 14th, because they were their own separate “nations”. That Act merely clarified that and did away with that notion. In essence, it is declaring that all Native Americans are in fact US Citizens going forward (Well, except it didn’t extend the right to vote, as that was dealt with by state laws,which came along later).
So it doesn’t modify the 14th Amendment, it modifies an understanding outside of the 14th, namely that Native Americans weren’t part of the US.
Its probably worth noting that the Native Americans themselves were pretty mixed about this. Quite a few were worried that they would lose the identity and membership in their respective tribes (which, given that many held property as a group, was more than just a personal identity issue). In typical fashion, however, the Act was passed with almost no input from the various tribes.
1 Like
The language of the 14th amendment uses the “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language, which is very inclusive. The fact that “we” were good at avoiding the question “Does that mean American Indians too?” for quite a while is just another one of those exceptional things about us.
I think it would be very difficult to roll back the Indian Citizen Act and declare 90+ years later that the 14th Amendment didn’t cover “all persons”. Similar language is included in section 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (8 USC 1401(b)), so it could be considered to have been reinforced.
While someone might be able to make a very dubious argument that Indians living on reservations are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, it would be a “yuuuuge” reach - and open up a couple of cans of worms - like what about Indians not living on reservations? Also, a change that drastic might open the US to actually having to meet the treaty obligations that formed the reservations.
1 Like
“When I talk about 13 million people in this country illegal [sic], I say 13 million human beings,”
But he still can’t bring himself to say “undocumented”.
Rubio’s principled stance on one offensive phrase is a hummingbird flying into a hurricane. Especially with Trump vigorously defending his use of it and vowing to continue to use it going forward. And like the hummingbird, he will ultimately just go along with the direction of the wind…around and around.
If he’s not careful, he is going to remind the base that he was the one taking center stage for getting an Immigration Bill through Congress…that actually talked about a pathway to citizenship. Then they are going to have to take him out back of the shed all over again.
Because they are not undocumented, they are illegal. Did they somehow lose their documents? Did we fail to provide the documents they are legally entitled to?
No, they have no right to documentation, they are here ILLEGALLY!