You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Rubio 'not in favor of repealing' birthright citizenship
2015-08-19
[WASHINGTONPOST] Marco Rubio is not echoing Donald Trump's call to repeal the constitutional provision that automatically grants citizenship to individuals born in the United States.

"I'm open to doing things that prevent people who deliberately come to the U.S. for purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment, but I'm not in favor of repealing it," Rubio, a Florida Republican senator and presidential hopeful, told news hounds in Iowa on Tuesday.

Rubio's comments came on the heels of Trump, the Republican front-runner, announcing that he supports revoking the so-called birthright provision. Another Republican candidate, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, said Monday that the United States should "absolutely" stop granting birthright citizenship.

Rubio said he had not read Trump's immigration plan, "only press accounts." Some of Trump's ideas "have merit, but the majority of it is really not a workable plan that could ever pass Congress," he said.
Posted by:Fred

#5  Build a wall and hammer any company that hires illegals and the there really won't be many illegals giving birth in the US.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2015-08-19 21:57  

#4  Rubio has always made it pretty clear how he feels about illegal immigration. That's why I'd never vote for him.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2015-08-19 15:58  

#3  No. It goes back to some Brennan dicta. Simply needs clarification, and that can come in the form of federal legislation subsequently reviewed by the SCT.

And yes, Rubio can't shake his predilections on immigration, which should disqualify him for higher office.
Posted by: Iblis   2015-08-19 13:26  

#2  As noted yesterday, the 14th Amendment makes them citizens, the wording was to protect the freed slaves born in America. It will take a new amendment 2/3rds-3/4th Congress and states to alter that. Or as is popular with progressives 5 out of 9 judges on the supreme court (or one half + 1 of whatever number someone decides to pack it with).
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-08-19 08:37  

#1  Well, I guess he doesn't want to be PODUS.
Posted by: jvalentour   2015-08-19 00:55  

00:00