Ron Paul finds a defender in CNN

After the recent Republican debate most media outlets have taken an opportunity to knock on Ron Paul, but one person at CNN has come to his defense.

While I’m not backing Ron Paul, I certainly do enjoy a voice of partial reason inside a room full of Republicans.

If you can’t get to the link above, the article is posted in full below the break.

Roland S. Martin is a CNN contributor and a talk-show host for WVON-AM in Chicago.

(CNN)—Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was declared the winner of Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, largely for his smack down of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who suggested that America’s foreign policy contributed to the destruction on September 11, 2001.

Paul, who is more of a libertarian than a Republican, was trying to offer some perspective on the pitfalls of an interventionist policy by the American government in the affairs of the Middle East and other countries.

“Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years,” he said.

That set Giuliani off.

“That’s really an extraordinary statement,” said Giuliani. “As someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq; I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11.”

As the crowd applauded wildly, Giuliani demanded that Paul retract his statements.

Paul tried to explain the process known as “blowback”—which is the result of someone else’s action coming back to afflict you—but the audience drowned him out as the other candidates tried to pounce on him.

After watching all the network pundits laud Giuliani, it struck me that they must be the most clueless folks in the world.

First, Giuliani must be an idiot to not have heard Paul’s rationale before. That issue has been raised countless times in the last six years by any number of experts.

Second, when we finish with our emotional response, it would behoove us to actually think about what Paul said and make the effort to understand his rationale.

Granted, Americans were severely damaged by the hijacking of U.S. planes, and it has resulted in a worldwide fight against terror. Was it proper for the United States to respond to the attack? Of course! But should we, as a matter of policy, and moral decency, learn to think and comprehend that our actions in one part of the world could very well come back to hurt us, or, as Paul would say, blow back in our face? Absolutely. His real problem wasn’t his analysis, but how it came out of his mouth.

What has been overlooked is that Paul based his position on the effects of the 1953 ouster by the CIA of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.

An excellent account of this story is revealed in Stephen Kinzer’s alarming and revealing book, “Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq,” where he writes that Iran was establishing a government close to a democracy. But Mossadegh wasn’t happy that the profit from the country’s primary resource—oil—was not staying in the country.

Instead, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known British Petroleum, or BP) was getting 93 percent of the profits. Mossadegh didn’t like that, and wanted a 50-50 split. Kinzer writes that that didn’t sit too well with the British government, but it didn’t want to use force to protect its interests. But their biggest friend, the United States, didn’t mind, and sought to undermine Mossadegh’s tenure as president. After all kinds of measures that disrupted the nation, a coup was financed and led by President Dwight Eisenhower’s CIA, and the Shah of Iran was installed as the leader. We trained his goon squads, thus angering generations of Iranians for meddling in that nation’s affairs.

As Paul noted, what happened in 1953 had a direct relationship to the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979. We viewed that as terrorists who dared attack America. They saw it as ending years of oppression at the hands of the ruthless U.S.-backed Shah regime.

As Americans, we believe in forgiving and forgetting, and are terrible at understanding how history affects us today. We are arrogant in not recognizing that when we benefit, someone else may suffer. That will lead to resentment and anger, and if suppressed, will boil over one day.

Does that provide a moral justification for what the terrorists did on September 11?

Of course not. But we should at least attempt to understand why.

Think about it. Do we have the moral justification to explain the killings of more than 100,000 Iraqis as a result of this war? Can we defend the efforts to overthrow other governments whose actions we perceived would jeopardize American business interests?

The debate format didn’t give Paul the time to explain all of this. But I’m confident this is what he was saying. And yes, we need to understand history and how it plays a vital role in determining matters today.

At some point we have to accept the reality that playing big brother to the world—and yes, sometimes acting as a bully by wrongly asserting our military might—means that Americans alive at the time may not feel the effects of our foreign policy, but their innocent children will.

Even the Bible says that the children will pay for the sins of their fathers.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the writer. This is part of an occasional series of commentaries on CNN.com that offers a broad range of perspectives, thoughts and points of view.

50 Responses to “Ron Paul finds a defender in CNN”

  1. Geoff Says:

    Not only CNN - but Path Buchanan has come to the defense

    http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan/but-who-was-right-rudy-or-ron.html

    And watch the dialogue sparked on “The View”:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=D6SfmXigHpE

  2. Richard Brodie Says:

    You might also want to check out this Ron Paul video which I just posted on YouTube:

    RON PAUL is OUR PLAN

  3. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    Thanks for that, Richard. I like how the letters orbit.

  4. globalist_elitist Says:

    From Ron Paul’s campaign web site:

    “End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.”

    The Constitutional scholar doesn’t think it’s relevent to mention that doing this would go against the intent of the Founders and would require a constitutional amendment. Interesting.

    I keep going back and forth on Dr. Paul. I would take Giuliani over him on fiscal, trade, and immigration policy in a second. In fact, he is almost THE WORST candidate on either side on these matters. If his opponents really want to discredit him, all they have to do is go to his web site and find things like this:

    “In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply - making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to ‘we the people.’”

    “NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system.”

    = Andy? Are you in there?

    All Rudy has to do is point out the above insanity and Ron Paul’s very sane foreign policy will be irrevocably discredited.

  5. Richard Brodie Says:

    The 14th amendment says:

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    The child of a foreign diplomat residing in this country is not regarded as a citizen, because that child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, UNLESS one of the parents happens to be a citizen of this country. This clearly shows what makes a child “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    There’s no conceivable reason why this principle (that at least one parent must be a citizen before a child is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) should apply to OFFICIALS of other countries (who are here legally), but not to ordinary citizens of other countries - especially if they are here ILLEGALLY.

    The founders would never have condoned a false interpretation of this amendment that would allow aliens to violate our sovereignty by sneaking in across our borders just long enough to have an anchor baby. There is no need for another amendment to end this kind of phony “birthright” citizenship - just a sane and proper interpretation and application of what we already have.

    As to your hyperbolic “insanity” characterization of Mr. Paul’s position on the Federal Reserve and theCFR’s openly announced NAU agenda, it is futile. Such unsupported name calling with not win converts from those who agree with him (they will conclude that your position has no merit other than being widely believed), nor will it prevent defections from your side on the part of anyone except those whose only truth criteron is how widely believed something is.

  6. globalist_elitist Says:

    Some facts:

    The Constitution makes no qualifications for citizenship. The original intent was clearly that all persons born within the U.S. would be citizens thereof. But let’s just say I’m wrong: Taking things further, it is clear that a citizen of A STATE within the Union is a citizen of the United States.

    Articel IV, Section 2: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

    Article I, Section 2 uses the term “citizen of the United States,” so the popular right-wing myth that there is/was no such thing until later amendments and/or interpretations is false. Right-wingers = braindead.

    Now tell me where in the Constitution where it says the qualifications for citizenship, and if not, are not those determinations to be left up to the states, as per the 10th amendment? SO IF A STATE WANTS TO DECLARE a person a citizen, based on that individual’s birth in the United States, the federal government CANNOT say that the person is not a citizen of that state - and THUS a citizen of the UNITED STATES - without a Constitutional amendment.

    Ron Paul conservatives are no different than George Bush conservatives or Michael Moore liberals - they only like the constitution when it serves their interests.

    Finally, there is the 14th amendment. The Constitutional case for citizenship by birth is already strong without it (assuming the individual states recognize it), but the 14th amendment is the clear nail in the racist, xenophobic, and anti-capitalist coffin of the Know-Nothing Ron Paul Border Nazis.

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    ALL PERSONS BORN (OR NATURALIZED) IN THE UNITED STATES ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    END OF DISSUSSION, NAZI.

  7. timothy west Says:

    abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

    1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

    above from Dr. Paul’s website.

    Where are all the people attacking and accusing him of being unprincipled?

    I’m a Ind. now, but just wondering why he’s not getting the special LP treatment for advocating closed borders, visas, and immigration restrictions?

    Where’s the “radicals”? ( Conservatives ) hiding?

  8. Jackcjackson Says:

    Bill Maher mentioned Ron Paul a lot on his show last night also.

    He defended Paul a lot and corrected Chris Dodd when he said he disagreed with Paul and mischaracterized his statements.

    I didn’t see Pauls first Maher appearance, but I remember hearing it didn’t go that well. However Maher said something last night like “This guy Ron Paul is my new hero. He’s been on here before and I want him to come back on.”

    I used to really like PI and sometimes like Maher’s show, but I am kinda sick of all debates in general, especially celebrity idiots debating ( and people who allow themselves to be shouted down without any kind of comeback).

    Last night for example, Bradley Whitford went on and on claiming that the REASON we are in our current situation is because we have been following the “conservative, limited government policies of Bush.” He went on and on about how the current Republicans are small government, etc, and that is the problem.

    Where do people get this from? Among 10 Republican POTUS candidates there are only a few remotely “small government” wth Paul the most consistent obvious example. Of course WE know that. If you listen to the Left, GWB is Barry Goldwater.

    People say they care about The War, but I dont know. The Left would probably elect a Hawk as long as he/she supports socialist healthcare. Meanwhile the Rs will nominate someone who holds multiple positions opposed by 70%+ of people. Maybe this is the perfect oportunity for 3rd parties, I dont know.

    I can’t even watch debates ( or debate in the internet) anymore because I just have to come to the cnclusion that 90% of people are incapable of rational thought and no amount of discourse will change that. It’s hard to reason with people who have 0 comprehension of anything and don’t care to research or learn.

  9. Trent Hill Says:

    “I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.”

    This is what Ron Paul has to say on the subject. From his article.
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html

    As for the Founders, they never said anything on the subject. The several states are supposed to determine their citizenship. That right has been revoked by the Federal government (Perhaps because of neccessity due to the Racist southern practices…but it has still been revoked) and therefor Federal action must be taken.

  10. Richard Brodie Says:

    The original intent was that anyone who applied for citizenship and met the requirements of the law therefor would become citizens, and that their posterity, at least those of their children born here AFTER they became citizens, would be able to enjoy automatic citizenship. There is no evidence that there was EVER any intent that people could come into the country illegally just to have anchor babies for the purpose of circumventing the established procedures.

    “ALL PERSONS BORN (OR NATURALIZED) IN THE UNITED STATES ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.”

    No they are not. Especially not just because YOU say so. I take it your dodging of the points that I raised is because you have no answer for them. I agree with you that the discussion needs to end here, I am quite content to let anyone read what I have said, contrast it to what you have said, and draw their own conclusions as to whose position is the most rational. In this connection note should be taken as to which one of us has resorted to adhominem attacks (racist, xenophobic, nazi, etc.) of the kind that are characteristic of poeple who know they are on shakey ground.

  11. Jay Matthews Says:

    Jack, if you haven’t seen it yet you can find Ron Paul’s first appearance on youtube. It wasn’t a bad interview. Maher challenged him on his stance that the American civil war wasn’t necessary. Paul pointed out many other first-world nations were able to do away with slavery w/o resorting to war. I don’t recall the next topic, but Paul garnered some applause with his response. Let’s hope he gets on Maher’s show again and The View too. His message of constitutional government is (sadly) fresh to many people.

  12. globalist_elitist Says:

    Brodie - Just because I say so? That’s a DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION. It’s not “just becase I say so.”

    Even the League of South hero Ron Paul agrees that a Constitutional amendment would be necessary.

    14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    You are a fascist.

  13. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    The 14th Amendment doesnt have ANYTHING to do with the “Founder’s intent”. Opposing an Amendment is not the same as opposing the Constitution itself.

  14. globalist_elitist Says:

    Trent - The DELEGATED POWER (not the right, statist) was reserved for the states, as per the 10th amendment, which was superceded on this point by the 14th. In order to return the delegated power to the states, a NEW constitutional amendment would be required.

    There is one racist asshole who denies this. I say he should be stoned.

  15. globalist_elitist Says:

    The 14th amendment obviously doesn’t have anything to do with the founder’s intent. It is my belief that the founders intended for citizenship to be granted by birth, but as there are no specific implications within the main body of the Constitution, my belief is as pointless as your misguided belief that NPV would circumvent their intent. The post I made above says it all.

  16. Trent Hill Says:

    Um,actually a large percentage of the American population supports an end to “Birthright” citizenship (or Jackpot migration/Chain Migration…whatever you call it).

    However, birthright citizenship doesnt need to be revoked in my mind. As long as their is a controlled border.

  17. globalist_elitist Says:

    Do we live in a society of mob rule? I don’t care if a “large percentage of the populatin supports an end to birthright citizenship” - that’s irrelavent. The FACT of the matter is - no matter how badly racists and socialists don’t like it - is that doing so would require a constitutional amendment. Do you disagree? I guess since you think the federal government can constitutionally prevent states from chosing their electors in the matter that the state fits, you prove my earlier axiom: “Ron Paul conservatives are no different than George Bush conservatives or Michael Moore liberals - they only like the constitution when it serves their interests.” Pretty much like how Christians only cite the Bible when it supports the right-wing and/or socialist agenda they’re trying to promote.

  18. Richard Brodie Says:

    Trent,

    Notice how our resident elite globalist persists in ignoring that important qualification in the 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    So there is a class of “persons born in the United States” who are NOT to be considered as “citizens of the United States.” Namely, those who are not subject to its jurisdiction. So we need to reason together and identify exactly what the criterion is for membership in this special category of persons born within the geographical boundaries of the United States but who do not, thereby, automatically become citizens of the United States nor of any State within it.

    In case you missed my my earlier explication of this, which globalist hopes will go away if he just never responds to it, here it is again:

    The child of a foreign diplomat, born in this country, is not regarded as a citizen because that child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, UNLESS one of the parents happens to be a citizen of this country. If both of his parents are not citizens of this country, then he is regarded as a citizen of the country which his parents are citizens of. This clearly shows what makes a child “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    There’s no conceivable reason why this principle (that at least one parent must be a citizen before a child is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) should apply to OFFICIALS of other countries (who are here legally), but not to ordinary citizens of other countries - especially if they are here ILLEGALLY.

    The founders would never have condoned a false interpretation of this amendment that would allow aliens to violate our sovereignty by sneaking in across our borders just long enough to have an anchor baby. There is no need for another amendment to end this kind of phony “birthright” citizenship - just a sane and proper interpretation and application of what we already have.

    Furthermore, what indication have I ever given that I am a xenophobic racist, which is what he likes to brand me without any justification. I am not opposed to a reasonable level of LEGAL immigration. I don’t think even the globalist would favor allowing in all 3 or 4 billion of the world’s poor, who might like to come here and partake of our welfare benefits.

    At the current rate of immigration-fed population increase, it won’t be long before we start running dangerously short of resources such as WATER, the ability to build enough roads to prevent total gridlock, prison capacity to hold a vastly greater number of criminals, etc. I happen to have some children that I would not like to see have to inherit a country that will look and feel somewhere between what it is like now, and India/China.

  19. Richard Brodie Says:

    Trent,

    Notice how our resident elite globalist persists in ignoring that important qualification in the 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    So there is a class of “persons born in the United States” who are NOT to be considered as “citizens of the United States.” Namely, those who are not subject to its jurisdiction. So we need to reason together and identify exactly what the criterion is for membership in this special category of persons born within the geographical boundaries of the United States but who do not, thereby, automatically become citizens of the United States nor of any State within it.

    In case you missed my my earlier explication of this, which globalist hopes will go away if he just never responds to it, go back and check out my 2nd comment in this thread.

    Furthermore, what indication have I ever given that I am a xenophobic racist, which is what he likes to brand me without any justification. I am not opposed to a reasonable level of LEGAL immigration. I don’t think even the globalist would favor allowing in all 3 or 4 billion of the world’s poor, who might like to come here and partake of our welfare benefits.

    At the current rate of immigration-fed population increase, it won’t be long before we start running dangerously short of resources such as WATER, the ability to build enough roads to prevent total gridlock, prison capacity to hold a vastly greater number of criminals, etc. I happen to have some children that I would not like to see have to inherit a country that will look and feel somewhere between what it is like now, and India/China.

  20. Richard Brodie Says:

    Allow me to explain the above double post. Apparently a comment analysis program that is sufficiently smart to be able to spot a lengthy self-quote and complain that I had “apparently said that before”, was not sufficiently smart to make sure that the original rejected comment would not be posted along with the revised one in which the quote was replaced with a backwards reference!

  21. Trent Hill Says:

    Richard Brodie,

    That was exactly my next talking point. “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

  22. globalist_elitist Says:

    Trent/Broadie - Since you both were probably educated in Christian schools, you don’t understand comma usage.

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    That is an independent clause. If it meant you had to be born AND be subject to the jurisdiction, the sentence would not require the commas. Idiots.

    And guess what: Anyone within our borders - excluding foreign diplomats, etc. - IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the United States, anwyay, so your racist, anti-capitalist arguments don’t hold weight. Unless you want to give diplomatic immunity to illegal immigrants.

    Finally, EVEN IF you were right (which you’re not), it still would require a constitutional amendment to delegate the authority of determining citizenship to the federal government.

    Anti-immigration arguments are based on three things
    (1) White supremacy
    (2) Anti-capitalism
    (3) Ignorance, stupidity, laziness, and white-trashiness (if that can all count as one)

  23. globalist_elitist Says:

    By the way, I’m not an elitist - I’m just better than white-trash immigrant bashers and anit-capitalist losers who don’t want to compete in the global economy.

  24. Richard Brodie Says:

    Trent,

    Don’t be misled by the globalist. In the midst of his pseudo intellectual grammatical hairsplitting over the placement of a comma, he fails to see what is right in front of his face - namely that the conjunction itself, connecting the two clauses, is AND not OR! His sophistry would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. I won’t bother to speculate as to what kind of a school HE was educated in.

    He claims: “If it meant you had to be born AND be subject to the jurisdiction, the sentence would not require the commas.”

    But the lingusitic truth of the matter is that if it did NOT mean that you had to be born AND be subject to the jurisdiction, then the sentence would not have used the conjunction AND! It would have used OR BUT NOT BOTH, if that’s what it had meant, or it would have used AND/OR, if that’s what it had meant. Those are the only two other logical possibilities. It didn’t use either of those, but instead used AND. Regardless of which of these three constructs had been used, the presence or absence of the comma would not have resulted in the meaning being anything other than exactly what it clearly and unambiguously states.

    And BTW, the school I was educated at is called Stanford University, from which I graduated magna cum laude at the age of 19 with a degree in Mathematics.

    Limited immigration arguments are based on one thing

    (1) The capacity to absorb additional population at a rate which does not adversely affect the standard of living of existing citizens.

  25. Trent Hill Says:

    Really? Do illegals pay taxes? Can they be prosecuted for dodging our taxes?
    Do we enforce the laws on them equally/at all? If not, they are not subject to the Jurisdiction thereof.

    Furthermore, your statement is rediculous. That is NOT an independent statement.
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
    =Ohk. Now…if you are right and this clause is independent—What about people who are born in the U.S., and then apply for citizenship in another country? Why are they not still citizens? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF!

  26. globalist_elitist Says:

    Illegals do pay taxes, you racist. They are subject to our laws.

    Why are the commas there? Explain it to me. They are uncessary under your interpretation. Did the drafters of the amendment not understand grammar?

    And secondly, you and your Nazi buddy aren’t exactly on the same page. He says a constitutional amendment would not be necessary for the federal government to determine citizenship criteria. You and the anti-semite hero Ron Paul admit that it would. Which is it?

  27. Trent Hill Says:

    Illegals pay taxes?

    Wow. You truly ARE ignorant. Illegals, the majority of the time, do not pay taxes because they are paid in cash. You truly are a retard if you think the majority of illegals pay taxes.

    Richard Brodie already explained the semantics…I won’t argue simple language with you. If you need English classes find a community college, not a political message board.

    Also, you didn’t answer this:
    “Ohk. Now…if you are right and this clause is independent—What about people who are born in the U.S., and then apply for citizenship in another country? Why are they not still citizens? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF!”
    Answer it.

  28. Devious David Says:

    I’m all for illegals not paying taxes. But, they do pay taxes. Gas taxes, sales taxes, etc.

  29. Jason C. Says:

    Let me continue.

    Birthright citizenship circumvents our overall immigration policy, assuming
    we have one. What sort of compassionate nation says, “While you must not come here illegally, if you do somehow manage to sneak over the border, avoid, survive stumbling across the desert a few days, snag some slave-wage job hidden in the shadows of our society, and then have a baby—Bingo!”?

    People like you GE ar are a mystery. It is doubtful that there has ever been a large part of a society so determined to promote a rapid overpopulation to deconstruct itself. But one significant step the sane people can take in the opposite direction is to change this misguided policy of granting birthright citizenship to the children of parents who are, after all, citizens of other nations and who have decided to live in the United States illegally.

    It is really the most simple and logical course you can take. It shouldn’t be a subject that a whole lot of thought and debate is required.

    -Jason

  30. Jason C. Says:

    hmmm…my earlier post never made it…let me try again.

  31. globalist_elitist Says:

    Trent - You’re totally wrong. The WSJ ran a cover story about illegals paying taxes like crazy. There are billions paid into the treasury every year from fake SSNs.

    I don’t understand the question.

    I understand English just fine. And economics too. Which is more than I can say for you Marxist border Nazis.

  32. Jason C. Says:

    GE this subject happens to be my hobby. Meaning, yes I think I know more about it than you. However you are very entertaining when you try to debate. People like you make it very easy because ya’ll all seem to work around 2 or 3 details concerning the constitution. As a matter of fact, I usually know exactly what people like you will say, so I go ahead and say it for them, and then move on with my part that concerns factual and historical relevance. It just something I like to do to speed up the whole process. But back to the part about where I know what they are going to say: None of their examples (as with you) are taken in context or applied in the right manner. So I’ve chimed in here to help you out; free of charge, brother.

    Ok, first GE, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction therof, are citizens of the United States.” This was Passed in 1868 to secure U.S. citizenship for newly freed black slaves, it has since been interpreted (in-correctly) as sanctioning citizenship on children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.

    The ridiculous claim that automatic citizenship “right” is said to come from the Fourteenth Amendment’s (1868) granting of citizenship to people “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” which was intended strictly for former slaves. The “jurisdiction” language itself came from Senator Lyman Trumbull who authored some of the first legislation enfranchising freed slaves. (So read into the history of this ammendment and you will not appear to be so dumb and naive of its intent.) :)

    To me and many others out there who can read and cross reference; its hard to imagine how this amendment commands that citizenship
    be awarded to the children of illegal aliens. Even if we just look at the
    words, how can it be said that families who are defying the “jurisdiction”
    of the United States are also “subject to” it? If they are, well then,
    why are they here?

  33. Jason C. Says:

    Information From the Center for Individual Freedom.

    Why Not Encourage Legal Immigration?

    America is the greatest country in the world and we have always opened our doors to those around the world who desire to live free!

    And the liberals and business interests that are working behind closed doors would love for you to believe that they simply want others to share in the American dream.

    They point self-righteous fingers at people like you and make shallow and false accusations of bigotry!

    But if that were the case… if these liberals are right… ask yourself one simple question:

    Why are our politicians focusing their efforts on giving a path to citizenship to the millions of illegals who have broken our laws? Why are they NOT focused on pushing legislation to make it easier for those who wish to come to this country legally?

    Because granting Amnesty to 12-20 million ILLEGAL aliens HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH GIVING OTHERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE FREE!

    Moreover, one simple fact that our political leaders blatantly choose to IGNORE is that while many of those who come into the United States illegally may be decent people looking for a better way of life, far too many who violate our laws by coming across the border are all too willing to violate others as well.

    Consider the following stats from Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa):

    Illegal aliens murder 12 people every day… 4,380 every year.

    That’s 21,900 since 9/11—MORE THAN THE TOTAL KILLED IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN combined.

    And that isn’t all:

    Illegal aliens who are driving under the influence kill 13 people every day. 4,745 per year… 23,725 since 9/11.

    A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study revealed that 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver without a valid license.

    A California study found that those who have never received a valid driver’s license are FIVE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO HAVE A FATAL ACCIDENT THAN THOSE WITH VALID LICENSES —more dangerous than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked.

    But there’s more:

    Congressman King also reports that illegal aliens molest 8 children every day. That’s 2,920 every year.

    Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of Atlanta’s Violent Crimes Institute reports that around 240,000 illegal aliens are sex offenders.

    So why are our elected officials ignoring those who are trying to come to this country legally, while at the same time pushing Amnesty for the 12-20 million who have broken our laws and who refuse to assimilate into our culture?

  34. Jason C. Says:

    According to ESR Research Economic Consultants, by the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.

    The average cost per day to house a federal inmate is $69, or over $25,000 a year. The average cost on the state level for 2000 was about $58 a day, or $21,170 yearly.

    Multiply those figures by 267,000 and we’re talking about $5.6 - $6.7 BILLION per year.

    And who do you think foots the bill? You, the American taxpayer. And our politicians tell you they can’t find the money to build a border fence.

    In April of 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated at the federal, state and local levels during 2003.

    The 55,322 illegal aliens had been arrested a total of 459,614 times—Average that number out and that’s around eight arrests per illegal.

    The total number of criminal offenses involved numbered around 700,000. That’s about 13 offenses per illegal.

    A whopping 36 percent had been arrested at least five times.

    Author Peter Wagner, who writes on immigration issues, has said that a disproportionate number of those who enter the country illegally are murderers, sex offenders, and other types of criminals. “That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration… . The question is, how much ‘bad’ is acceptable and at what price?”

  35. Jason C. Says:

    Did you see the letter from the heads of the six largest hotel chains in the country ( Matthew J. Hart, President and Chief Operating Officer, Hilton Hotels Corporation; Stevan Porter, President, The Americas for InterContinental Hotels Group; J.W. “Bill” Marriott, Jr., Chairman and CEO, Marriott International, Inc.; Thomas J. Pritzker, Chairman, Global Hyatt Corporation; Jonathan M. Tisch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Loews Hotels; and Bruce W. Duncan, Interim Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) , pushing the Senate to pass Amnesty?

    (Translation: Our business is built on putting cheap illegal labor to work… please let us do it legally or the hundreds or millions in campaign contributions will stop.)

    Did you notice that Senator Ted Kennedy invited radical organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Council of La Raza to help him craft so-called “immigration legislation” but called the 70% of the American people that oppose Amnesty “bigots” and told them to basically “shut up!” To put it in Kennedy’s own words: “We hope that the voices of hatred and bigotry will silence themselves for this debate…”

  36. Jason C. Says:

    Bottom line to all of this: A nation that lacks the political will to secure its borders and protect its people and way of life is not a nation at all.

    -Jason

  37. globalist_elitist Says:

    Jason C. - All your stats and facts do not take into accoount the abundance and economic growth made possible by immigrants, illegal and legal. NO PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC STUDY - not one of them (at least not by a Ph.D. economist) say we are worse off for immigration. The degree to which we’re better off is the only thing disputed, with the lowest estimates coming in at 0.1% greater wealth, and the high estimates at 9% greater wealth.

    Here is what I am for:

    1. Amnesty. Unjust laws should not be followed, and those who break the laws of governments to answer the laws of supply and demand should not be punished.

    2. Legalization and earned path to citizenship for all illegals currently in the country. See above. I’m not afraid of the A word. I live in the REAL WORLD, a place that libertarians and border zealots alike rarely visit. The thing that needs to be done for economy and security is BRING ILLEGALS OUT OF HIDING. We will never do this unless we take away the incentive for them to hide.

    3. No welfare for non-citizens. I understand there are still societal costs - unpaid hospital bills, schooling, etc. - but so what? Even with all of these costs, immigrants still contribute to our standard of living. Bring them all into legality (more taxes) and take away direct welfare benefits, and the net would be even greater.

    4. Secure the border: This CANNOT BE DONE while we have quotas and restrictions that defy the laws of capitalism. Once #5 (see below) is achieved, securing the border will be easy - and we will be safer because of it.

    5. Abolish all quotas and restrictions on immigration. The only rules should be (a) you are not a criminal, (b) you are not eligible for welfare benefits as a non-citizen. If you commit a crime or become indigent, you have to leave.

    “A nation that lacks the political will to secure its borders and protect its people and way of life is not a nation at all.” = WHO CARES?

  38. timothy west Says:

    “A nation that lacks the political will to secure its borders and protect its people and way of life is not a nation at all.” = WHO CARES?

    because you will put all the mapmakers out of business?

  39. Richard Brodie Says:

    Globalist states: “Unjust laws should not be followed, and those who break the laws of governments to answer the laws of supply and demand should not be punished.” So let’s be crystal clear about what this self-righteous, name-calling, no-borders, NWO guy thinks.

    He thinks that any one or ALL of this world’s 6 billion non-citizens who want to supply their labor to American businesses, should just be able to walk in when no border authorities are watching, and not be punished with deportation if it is discovered that they broke our immigration laws. And it makes no difference if he climbs over a fence at night in the middle of the Arizona desert, swims across the Rio Grande, or runs through an airline or highway checkpoint in broad daylight and succeeds in evading arrest.

    So globalist, realizing that all his efforts to defend automatic citizenship by birth to illegal aliens have been thoroughly demolished, now switches gears - from trying to defend immigration as being supported by law, to saying screw the Constitution, the “laws” of supply and demand take precedence over that godamn piece of outdated paper. Nice to see him proudly displaying his true colors, which we all pretty well recognized from the beginning anyway.

    So here’s one last little homework assignment for him. Consider the following sentence from the 14th Amendment:

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”

    There are three conditions

    A) born in the United States
    B) naturalized
    C) subject to the jurisdiction thereof

    This thread has been dealing with A and C, between which there are only three possible relationship that could have been intended by those who composed this sentence.

    1) fully conjuctive: “born in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof

    2) inclusively disjunctive: “born in the United States, AND/OR subject to the jurisdiction thereof

    3) exclusively disjunctive: “born in the United States, OR subject to the jurisdiction thereof BUT NOT BOTH

    Since globalist wants to complicate the interpretation by contending that the presence of the comma nullifies the word AND, thereby ruling out a simple and straightforward reading of the language, he needs to say which one of possibilities 2 and 3 the comma transforms that language into, and of course why the one he favors is correct and why the one he does not favor is incorrect.

  40. Jason C. Says:

    I was going to respond to GE but after reading the above post by Richard, what the hell is the point? I don’t think I can do any justice.

    GE its not to late, you can still see the error of your globalist NWO ways. Its just a fad and will soon lose its appeal once people grow sick and tired of seeing their country and community become McAmerica.

    GE come over, we don’t hate you. Stop the madness.

    -Jason

  41. globalist_elitist Says:

    “He thinks that any one or ALL of this world’s 6 billion non-citizens who want to supply their labor to American businesses, should just be able to walk in when no border authorities are watching, and not be punished with deportation if it is discovered that they broke our immigration laws.”

    NOT TRUE: I think the laws should be changed so that any peaceable immigrant in search of a better life is allowed to come here AFTER passing a background check and possibly even submitting biometric data. The immigrants who are currently here risked their lives to better themselves. They made it through border security. Millions more were caught and sent back. They would it should be and the way it is have nothing to do with each other.

    I’M NOT SWITCHING GEARS: The Constittuion does provide citizenship by birth. You are wrong, and I am right. That is the way that the Constitution is currently being interpretted, and just because you say it’s wrong, doesn’t make it so. Who the hell are you? A racist nobody who is intimidated by global competition. You are a loser and you deserve to starve.

    THERE ARE NOT THREE CONDITIONS. You don’t understand English. Perhaps you should be deported.

    BORDER ZEALOTS = COMMUNISTS who think that governments, not markets, should determine the number of janitors, cabbage pickers, computer programmers, and taxi-cab drivers we have. They want protection and insulation from global competition, and they want HIGHER WAGES than their mediocre, loser skills merit. You all suck. Create your own wealth and stop trying to prevent economic growth. YOU DO NOT OWN MY PROPERTY and you have no right to tell me who I can hire, who I can buy from or sell to.

  42. Richard Brodie Says:

    “YOU DO NOT OWN MY PROPERTY and you have no right to tell me who I can hire, who I can buy from or sell to.”

    Sounds to me like he’s a hirer of illegals. Sorry, you can only hire people who are in this country legally. If your property happens to be a day care center the government has a right to tell you that you CANNOT hire a known pedophile, etc., etc., etc.

  43. globalist_elitist Says:

    Brodie = Communist. He just admitted it.

    MOVE TO FRANCE.

  44. Andy Says:

    “NOT TRUE: I think the laws should be changed so that any peaceable immigrant in search of a better life is allowed to come here AFTER passing a background check and possibly even submitting biometric data. The immigrants who are currently here risked their lives to better themselves. They made it through border security. Millions more were caught and sent back. They would it should be and the way it is have nothing to do with each other.”

    You support background checks and biometric data for immigrants. You must be a racist!

  45. globalist_elitist Says:

    Um, no. I believe in security. Peace and prosperity. I believe in taking all comers, so long as they come here to work, not to be leeches, and not to committ crimes. If people want to come, and they’re willing to submit to the background checks and biometric data, then they should be welcome. It is a national security issue.

    And my point was NO WELFARE for non-citizens. That takes away your argument and exposes you for the racial protectionist that you are.

  46. Jason C. Says:

    GE,

    I think what you want is noble. It sounds wonderful. What you want doesn’t exist, and what we want doesn’t exist. If it did that would mean we would have a comprehensive border security plan or program in action. What we have is essentially border Anachry. Nothing in place to stop or curb the crooks from being “leeches, and not to committ crimes”. You see that is exactly what we got.

    Why do you think the SW schools has consistently fallen over the decade? It is directly tied to our run-a-way border issue. So you have done nothing but preach about this ideal utopia. What it should be, what it could be, if only people would come over and pull their weight. Well hell, 99% of the worlds problems would be lifted if any of that was the case.

    All we want is border reform and for our spineless leaders to enforce the already existent damn laws! See the difference.

  47. Trent Hill Says:

    GE, although you briefly stopped on this….let’s return to it.

    After Jason revealed numbers that easily cost the U.S. Taxpayer 10 billion a year (documented: See Above. It didn’t take schooling of illegals into account either, which nearly doubles the number) and you ignored them. Your only retort was, “Despite all the numbers above, no one has ever said that immigration was bad for our country. All agree it is an increase of wealth”(Paraphrase).
    Of course immigration is good for our country. ILLEGAL immigration, is not.

    As for your speech of “Security and prosperity”, why don’t you add a “Partnership” to the end of that and get involved in the SPP/NAU efforts.
    As for wanting to take BIOMETRIC data from an immigrant…you’re worse than any american politician. Holy crap, talk about big government.

    Also, the billions of dollars the immigrants pay through SS do NOT pay for their public schooling, hospital bills, defamation of property, or jail time. Not even close. It leads to quite a deficit in fact.
    We are not racists, we are not xenophobes. Im in favor if legal immigration. Hell, I want to expand the quota that come here from Cuba, Venezuela, China, North Korea, and Iran (Because these people are escaping tyranny) after making sure they are not millitarily involved with those countries. Your tireless efforts to make us seem racist are futile. I have a Cuban fiance, black family on her side, and asian and jewish family on my side. My family line represents a melting pot.
    And that is one of the major reasons Illegal Immigration isnt working these days. Instead of a melting pot, where all immigrants retain their cultural heritage, but consider themselves Americans. These people cross our borders illegally, and then still consider themselves citizens of Mexico, or Guatemala or whatever. Witness:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y721T9nX0k
    Raising of a mexican flag over a Federal U.S. Building generally constitutes WAR.

  48. Tom Bryant Says:

    Diplomats and their family have immunity.

    Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They can be arrested, fined, jailed, and deported by the US government. Would you rather have illegal aliens be above the law just like diplomats, or would you rather have their children be citizens? The Constitution only allows one or the other right now.

  49. Trent Hill Says:

    Tom,

    Wrong. They arent prosecuted by the laws equally. Nor do they pay taxes generally. They are also free to cross the southern border without consequence,which any normal citizen could be prosecuted for. Also, they are still CITIZENS of another country. That is the main part.

  50. globalist_elitist Says:

    The assertion that they do not pay taxes is a flat-out racist lie. You might as well say that immigrants have an extra bone in their foot.

    My guess is you “missed” this article in the WSJ.

    Even Workers In U.S. Illegally Pay Tax Man
    Booming Los Angeles Business Caters To Immigrants Who Need Help Filing
    By MIRIAM JORDAN
    April 4, 2007; Page B1

    LOS ANGELES On a recent Sunday afternoon, construction workers, car washers, truck drivers and students crowded into Petra Castillo’s one-room tax-preparation office in this city’s South Central neighborhood. Most of those inside what was once the home of El Jefe Tacos shared something besides their need to beat this year’s April 17 filing deadline: They are illegal immigrants.

    “They are undocumented, but they want to do everything right,” says Mrs. Castillo, 50 years old, who has a no-nonsense demeanor as she juggles phone calls and customers, mainly speaking in Spanish.

    Politicians and activists campaigning for a crackdown on illegal immigration frequently complain that the nation’s estimated 12 million undocumented residents violate U.S. law by not paying taxes, as well as by being in the U.S. without permission. But Mrs. Castillo’s booming business shows how some of the workers who are here in defiance of one arm of the U.S. government—the Department of Homeland Security—are filing federal tax returns with the aggressive encouragement of another—the Internal Revenue Service.

    “If someone is working without authorization in this country, he or she is not absolved of tax liability,” IRS Commissioner Mark Everson, a former immigration official, said in testimony before Congress last year. Last week, speaking to the National Press Club, he added, “We want your money whether you are here legally or not and whether you earned it legally or not.”

    Undocumented workers wait inside the former taco stall, where Petra Business Services helps them file their tax returns.

    In 1996, the IRS created the individual taxpayer identification number, or ITIN, a nine-digit number that starts with “9,” for taxpayers who didn’t qualify for a Social Security number. Since then, the agency has issued about 11 million of them, and by 2003, the latest year with available figures, the number of tax returns using them had risen to nearly one million. The government doesn’t know how many of those taxpayers were undocumented immigrants. Foreign nationals with tax-reporting requirements in the U.S. can also get an ITIN. But most of the people who use the number are believed to be in the U.S. illegally. All told, between 1996 and 2003, the income-tax liability for ITIN filers totaled almost $50 billion.

    As part of its outreach effort, the IRS has been helping taxpayers apply for ITINs through partnerships with community groups. Last week, the Center for Economic Progress, a nonprofit group in Chicago, hosted its fourth ITIN event of the tax season at a church on the city’s South Side, helping individuals apply for the number and file in one sitting.

    Critics say the government is legitimizing the presence of illegal immigrants by encouraging them to file tax returns. “A major organ of the U.S. government is saying it’s OK to be illegal as long as you send in your return,” says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports tighter immigration controls.

    The decision to report wages and withheld taxes can be a hard one for illegal immigrants, though, because they normally use an invalid Social Security number to obtain work. Mrs. Castillo must attach the W-2, often with a fake Social Security number, to the tax return, along with the ITIN. The IRS instructs tax preparers to fill in Social Security numbers as they are shown on the W-2 form, even if the numbers are invalid.

    Mrs. Castillo assures her customers that the IRS doesn’t share information with Homeland Security. The tax code prevents disclosure of taxpayer information except in limited circumstances. In his National Press Club speech, Mr. Everson said: “There is no bleeding over of information from the IRS to the Department of Homeland Security at this stage. The systems are independent.”

    Most illegal immigrants who visit Petra Business Services, as Mrs. Castillo’s business is called, say they hope that filing a tax return will eventually boost their chances of securing a green card. A bipartisan immigration bill introduced in Congress last month requires proof of “good moral character” in order for illegal residents to qualify for permanent U.S. residency. The last immigration amnesty, in 1986, required them to prove they had lived and worked in the U.S. for several years.

    The possibility of getting a refund is another motivation: Because undocumented workers normally use a fake Social Security number to work, their Social Security and Medicare contributions won’t do them any good. Filing a tax return with an ITIN gives them a shot at getting some withheld money back.

    Petra Castillo at her South Central Los Angeles office.

    “The rules of this country say that everyone must file taxes,” says Pablo Espinoza, a welder. “I am complying with the rules.” The Mexican immigrant and his wife, Martha, who works in a chicken-processing plant, earned about $42,000 last year. Mr. Espinoza acknowledges that he and his wife are here illegally. But in every other respect, he says, they are law-abiding residents. “We work hard. We have a clean record. We file our taxes,” he says.

    Mrs. Castillo jots down the couple’s ITIN numbers on their 1040 form. Last year, $1,464.88 in Social Security and $342.60 in Medicare were deducted from Mr. Espinoza’s wages. His wife paid several hundred dollars in Social Security and Medicare, too. In addition, $3,508 in federal taxes was withheld from their combined salaries. Mrs. Castillo figures they will get a $3,462 refund from the IRS, putting their total federal tax bill at $46.

    Berenice Reyes, a 24-year-old student, has brought W-2 forms for two years of work at a sandwich shop. She says she wants to pay her taxes to prove she could be a good citizen. Since it’s her first time filing taxes, Mrs. Castillo helps her fill out a W-7 ITIN application, which states that “getting an ITIN does not change your immigration status or your right to work in the U.S.”

    The irony of filing a tax return isn’t lost on Ms. Reyes, who works to pay her college tuition and aspires to teach high school in South Central. “I’m trying to go by the law,” she says. “But according to other laws, I shouldn’t even be in this country.”

    Mrs. Castillo started working as a clerk in the IRS’s Los Angeles office in the mid-1970s. Eventually, she began volunteering during tax season at a church in South Central. In time, Mrs. Castillo decided she wanted to start her own tax business, so she quit the IRS job to avoid a conflict of interest and took another full-time post at a different government agency. She launched the business on the side, charging people to fill out their returns from an improvised office on her parents’ covered front porch. In 1999, her husband, Gerardo, converted a dilapidated taco stall into an office.

    Mrs. Castillo charges a fraction of what large tax preparers charge—a flat $40 for a simple 1040A form. She spends about 20 minutes a customer, often inquiring about deductibles that they might have overlooked. Because the undocumented immigrants hear about her by word of mouth, they say they feel more comfortable at her office than they would at a large tax-preparation firm. Customers who have moved to Texas, Arizona and the Southeast still use her services, often sending their documents by fax or mail.

Leave a Reply