Rubio, Trump on Birthright Citizenship

Trump's against it, and says it doesn't even exist at the current moment; Rubio says not only does it exist, it's what makes America exceptional.

Rubio cited, get this, his own biography:

He said he didn't favor repealing the 14th amendment to abolish its guarantee that American-born children are automatically citizens of the U.S. That guarantee made him a citizen in 1971 when he was born in Miami to immigrants from Cuba who were not citizens themselves.

But that's a bit silly; as I understand it, both of Rubio's parents were here legally. Most people are not talking about ending birthright citizenship for those in the legal process of immigration.

I'm sorry, I have given Rubio every chance, and I have rooted for him throughout this; I have always considered him the most appealing and polished candidate, and the one with the most potential upside.

On the share a beer with: Rubio seems to me pretty much the only candidate who might be actually fun to hang out with.

Plus, you know: That billion dollar high-tech speedboat.

But now I close the book on Marco Rubio. It's just enough already. I have no interest in someone who doesn't have my interests in mind. He is just convinced -- perhaps even in a real, principled way -- that we owe the rest of the world a great deal more than I feel we owe the rest of the world.

If he's a true believer in amnesty and so forth, that's even more of a problem than him being, say, bought by amnesty-supporting interests, because a True Believer is more effective than any merely rented politician.

For years he has seen his Unstoppable Force for amnesty coming into a collision course with the Immovable Object of party sentiment, and he has yet but to shift a degree or two in his vector.

I'll call him principled, maybe. But what I can't call him any more is viable, at least not for me.

Good candidate, smart guy, but.... maybe veep, or maybe one day. But not now.

Additionally, Ted Cruz appears to have reversed himself, partially, on the birthright citizenship issue. In 2011, he said it was part of the Constitution (well, not literally, but penumbra'd within it), and that it would be a pointless waste of time to change that.

Now he says, still, it's part of the Constitution, and that we need an amendment to change it, and that while this would be very difficult (verging on the pointless, maybe) we should "absolutely" do it.

Eh. I'm sure the courts would agree with him; I'm also not sure I care what Kennedy and Roberts think anymore. Change the definition of "jurisdiction" by statute, then take this category of cases out of the court's ability to review.

The hell with them.

posted by Ace at 06:13 PM

| Access Comments