Well, the 14th Amendment is where “anchor babies” come from. If you want to make it so that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens, that means repealing at least that part of the 14th Amendment with a new Amendment. It was the 14th Amendment that also got rid of the “2/3rds compromise” and segregated public schools after Brown v Board of Education. Including ‘illegal immigration,’ it seems like he’s taking some very strong positions on some very racially charged issues.
How does wanting swift military action against Afghanistan support colonization? Just because he theoretically supports military action does not mean he supports whatever is being done now in Afghanistan. I support destroying Nazi regimes, I do not support World War II.
Your “certain classes of people” happen to be enemy combatants. I don’t really have an opinion on this matter yet, but at the very least do not distort the opinions of others. No, you are not “calling it what it is” if that is what you are thinking. “Classes of people” implies imagery of Jews having yellow stars on their chests, not third world insurgents with ak-47s in a military conflict.
How does increasing the percentage of the military spending of the US budget imply MORE taxes? It could easily mean a decrease of taxes if he lowered spending in other areas.
Him supporting the sovereignty of the united states hardly makes him a fascist, it just means he believes in nation states.
From the quote you gave, it seems that Rand Paul was saying that people going on witch hunts is pointless. BP didn’t want this to happen, and while it is their fault , it doesn’t mean they are malicious.
So basically he supports the proper roll of government, protecting the rights of citizens. His methods may be questionable, but this doesn’t make him a fascist or a supporter of Omni-potent government.Fascism means something along the lines of the merger of all social institutions with the state. This is usually includes a corporatist economic model. Omni-potent government means a government that has the right to do whatever it wants. Rand Paul believes that the proper roll of government is to protect the rights of the citizenry. You can argue that his methods are contraditory to that purpose, but argue that instead of name calling.
Really this post reaches levels of distortion and hysteria that I expect from Sean Hannity and leftist bloggers.
I disagree. The 14th amendment says (in part) “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction therof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherin they reside.” (emphasis added). In other words, someone who is born in the US but not subject to the jurisdiction of the US is not necessarily a US citizen. So then the question becomes, who is ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the US? A child of parents who snuck in illegally does not qualify. Clearly the intent of the 14th amendment was to ensure freed slaves would be considered citizens, not to reward lawbreakers who snuck into the US to deliver their babies on US soil.
Personally I’m in favor of completely free immigration, and I don’t think the issue of citizenship is relevant in any way. But for a strict constitutionalist, the 14th amendment does not guarantee that anyone born here is a citizen.