Paul to Russia: Illegal Immigrants Kids Shouldn’t Be U.S. Citizens

Every day Rand Paul looks more and more to me like Joe Pesci as David Ferry in JFK. This Tea Party, Libertarian, Republican Hybrid thing that Paul has going on also has me confused. But, then so do all of the Republican party’s viewpoints the past two decades. Here I am, thinking I’ve got a bead on the tea party philosophy when Rand Paul breaks out this gem to a Russian tv station (video on the right):

Paul recently suggested to a Russian TV station that the U.S. should abandon its policy of granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants — even if they’re born on U.S. soil.

Paul also said he’s discussed instituting an “underground electrical fence” on the border to keep out unwanted elements, though he emphasized that he’s “not opposed to letting people come in and work and labor in our country.”

The real problem, Paul said, is that the U.S. “shouldn’t provide an easy route to citizenship” because of “demographics.”

Boy, things sure have changed here on Walton Mountain. (lame reference) Am I to understand that Rand Paul thinks the 14th Amendment of the Constitution should be changed so that being born in America doesn’t automatically grant you citizenship? 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.”

This Amendment was enacted, of course, to grant citizenship to slaves, people whose parents were brought here “legally” through kidnapping. Therefore, if you were born a slave on a plantation in South Carolina the 14th Amendment granted you citizenship in the United States and South Carolina. Therefore, in today’s world, if your parents sneak over here from Mexico and give birth to you while they’re here (a choice that I assume Rand Paul would prefer since he’s against abortion) you get to become a United States citizen.

What is it about the tea party that insists on one hand the Constitution be enforced to the letter of the law and on the other hand just willy nilly amended when it suits their purposes? I suppose you can argue that about just about any party, but it seems dominant among tea drinkers.

The other part that boggles the mind is the fact that Paul sat down with a RUSSIAN television station. I can’t imagine that this act would bring anything less than a withering critique about socialism and communism from Glenn Beck if Obama did the same. Maybe it was all part of a national security strategy. He was warning the Russians we’re going to build an invisible underground fence so that they won’t try and come here illegally through Alaska. Now, I’ll give him that it’s a better defense than Sarah Palin watching Russia through binoculars from her house, but really?

The topsy turvy logic of Paul and the Tea Partiers makes me think I’m losing my mind. If they were allowed to govern it would be, as Dr. Peter Venkman so eloquently put it, “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!”