Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 387 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Bob Barr Cosponsored Legislation to Take Away Citizenship from American-Born Babies. How is Taking Away Rights Libertarian?

As I noted yesterday, since Barack Obama knifed the Constitution in the back with his pro-FISA flip flop, people have been writing to me with advice about how I should switch my vote to Bob Barr for President. See, they tell me, Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party candidate, and so he will be a big supporter of Liberty. Never mind that he actually voted for the Patriot Act: he’s sorry about that now. And never mind that he voted to prohibit women in the military serving overseas from obtaining abortions, even if these women pay for it out of their own pockets: that’s, um, er, states’ rights?

Yes, I am highly skeptical of the claim that Bob Barr is the presidential candidate for those who care about American freedom. My skepticism is deepened when I find out that when he held office in the U.S. Congress as a Republican, Bob Barr cosponsored legislation to take away the citizenship of American-born babies. Read the legislation yourself.

Let’s get into some detail here so you can appreciate the extent to which Bob Barr’s cosponsorship is actually a rejection of constitutional liberty.

As it now stands in the United States of America, if you are born in this country, you’re a citizen. Being born in this country, not being of “pure blood descent” (a Nazi idea), is what brings you into the fold of citizenship. This idea about citizenship is so fundamental that it is formally enshrined in the United States Constitution:

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 bill Bob Barr cosponsored, H.R. 73, proposes two conditions under which babies born in the United States should have their citizenship revoked:

1. IF THE PARENTS ARE MARRIED, then the American-born baby loses her citizenship if her parents aren’t themselves citizens or permanent residents.
2. IF THE PARENTS AREN’T MARRIED, then the American-born baby loses his citizenship if his MOTHER isn’t a citizen or permanent resident, even if his FATHER IS a citizen or permanent resident.

Bob Barr was not required by his Republican party to cosponsor the legislation — only 48 members of the U.S. Congress out of 435 members total supported the bill. Bob Barr actively chose to support this bill. Bob Barr actively chose to affirm the following extreme ideas:

1. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is just a suggestion that any old law of Congress can overrule.

2. The purity of one’s bloodline, not the quality of one’s self, determines one’s rights.

3. Children who are born to unmarried parents have no status in the eyes of the law.

4. Fathers have no parenthood rights, bestowing nothing upon their children. If you are born to a father who is an American citizen and a mother who is, say, a visiting student from Latvia, you can forget it. You didn’t follow Bob Barr’s moral strictures, so you must pay.

To a citizen who respects the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, who believes in civil liberty and who believes that government should be open and free in the recognition of the rights rather than restrictive in constraining them, the ideas contained in these bills should be chilling to the bone. Remember who endorsed these ideas: Bob Barr.

3 comments to Bob Barr Cosponsored Legislation to Take Away Citizenship from American-Born Babies. How is Taking Away Rights Libertarian?

  • June

    I believe that the idea behind this bill is to reduce incentives for illegal immigration. Right now if a woman can get across the border to deliver, her child becomes a citizen and her immigration priority gets raised. Also, remember that Barr introduced this bill before his libertarian awakening. Just like Saul/Paul of Tarsus he has undergone considerable personal awakening since then.

  • Juniper

    So, if a law to tattoo the babies of undocumented immigrants were introduced, would you support that too, just because the idea behind the bill would be to reduce incentives for illegal immigration?

    If Bob Barr has changed through an awakening so late in life, then what’s to say he won’t fall back asleep again?

  • Jim

    He hasn’t changed his thinking on the issue one bit. Current position:

    The U.S. also should reconsider the policy of “birthright” citizenship. The members of Congress and state legislatures that approved the 14th Amendment (in the late 1860s) never imagined that their work would turn the children of tourists, as well as illegal migrants, into citizens. Although a constitutional amendment likely will be necessary to do this, America should join most of the countries of the world and require more the than location of birth to determine citizenship.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>