August 18, 2010

Harry Reid rails against birthright citizenship: "No sane country would do that."

In 1993:



I note that he's bumbling along, reading as if he'd never seen the text before and barely understood the words as he said them.

20 comments:

knox said...

Ugh, Harry Reid has been around since 1993. How embarrassing for Nevada.

AlphaLiberal said...

When 17 years separate two positions it's a bit hasty to call it hypocritical. It's possible he gave the speech, was challenged and changed his position.

It's OK to change positions. Especially when you are the leader

But it's still pretty good quality "gotchya," nonetheless.

AllenS said...

One more person who will say anything, to anybody, at any time. Will the news stations in Nevada run this?

Ann Althouse said...

"When 17 years separate two positions it's a bit hasty to call it hypocritical. It's possible he gave the speech, was challenged and changed his position."

Yeah, plus, as I said, he didn't seem too familiar with that speech he was reading. The charge of hypocrisy actually contains the compliment that the person is intelligent, aware, and in control of what he's saying.

HDHouse said...

Hmmmm I wonder what was said before and what was said after this snipet.

Can it be the Immigration Stabilization act of 1993?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:H.R.3320.IH:

so nice that you can snip any speech and put out something that falsely portrays it.

Ain't technology wonderful.

c3 said...

I've never understood how he got to where he is.

HDHouse said...

@c3...votes

Scott M said...

hen 17 years separate two positions it's a bit hasty to call it hypocritical. It's possible he gave the speech, was challenged and changed his position.

It's OK to change positions. Especially when you are the leader


Agreed, but it is hypocritical until that leader gives his reasoned basis for changing his position.

Bumbling describes Reid well. Watching a couple of the bigger votes this year live on C-Span, I watched him, repeatedly, give the wrong vote and heard his party yell at him.

Another living, breathing argument for term limits.

Hoosier Daddy said...

My two favrote Reid moments was when he remarked about the Capitol Hill AC unit and how he was glad it was updated because during the summer he could smell the tourists.

The other was on the Tavis Smiley show where he really got Tavis giggling like a schoolgirl when Harry recounted growing up in Searchlight and learning to swim in a whorehouse swimming pool.

Its quite possible the people of Nevada finally realized what a buffoon they've been re-electing although after 17 years of this tool isn't a rousing endorsement of our electorate.

Hagar said...

I do not know that the 14th Amendment automatically gives citizenship to "native born" children, but I kind of think the original Constitution does.

As for "anchor babies," I think that can be taken care of by deleting the sanctimonious claptrap in the immigration statutes about "uniting families," etc.

Cedarford said...

Hagar said...
I do not know that the 14th Amendment automatically gives citizenship to "native born" children, but I kind of think the original Constitution does.

As for "anchor babies," I think that can be taken care of by deleting the sanctimonious claptrap in the immigration statutes about "uniting families," etc.
==============
Prior to the 14th, citizenship was by blood. It still is a legal valid test of citizenship. The 14th was only so babies born to non-citizen slaves could join the rest of Americans as Americans by blood from then on. (They would be considered born US citizens by birthright.)
And the former slaves were not considered illegal once slavery ended. They were legal, no one tried to deport them against their will.

==============
Even without chain immigration, the anchorbaby is a heavy drain on US social services and resources. Each is entitled to welfare checks, free medical care, free schooling. (now close to 1 in 10 live births in America are spawn of illegals)

edutcher said...

That's why Sharron Angle will be in the race to Election Day. She may make a lot of rookie mistakes, but she's running against Dingy Harry, the gift that keeps on giving.

AlphaLiberal said...

When 17 years separate two positions it's a bit hasty to call it hypocritical. It's possible he gave the speech, was challenged and changed his position.

The Lefties will do the same thing to a Republican if there's 50 years between the previous statement (college paper, etc.) and the present day.

Harry's getting what a lot of Lefties have had coming, although Ann's point about intelligence is valid, also. Never forget Harry was a flyweight boxer - we don't know how many blows to the head he's had.

HDHouse said...

Hmmmm I wonder what was said before and what was said after this snipet.

Can it be the Immigration Stabilization act of 1993?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:H.R.3320.IH:

so nice that you can snip any speech and put out something that falsely portrays it.

Ain't technology wonderful.


Until they've been on the receiving end recently, the Lefties always thought so.

ndspinelli said...

Stop the presses!!! You mean Harry Reid is a hypocrite? Next you're going to tell me Al Gore is a pompous buffoon or that Nancy Pelosi is dull/normal and uses botox.

Ankur said...

Of course he was wrong in making that speech. And he knows that too. Here's his rather profuse apology for that idiotically rambling excuse for a speech.

Idiocy? Yes.

Hypocrisy? Not so much. This is similar to people who change their views about gay marriage, interracial marriage, global warming, etc.

Ankur said...

Forgot the link.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/reid-speech-in-2006.html

bagoh20 said...

"When 17 years separate two positions it's a bit hasty to call it hypocritical. It's possible he gave the speech, was challenged and changed his position."

It's not hypocrisy - he's just getting dumber. It's required if you want to stay a liberal as life teaches you better year after year. It's really quite an accomplishment to go backwards this much. He certainly is "challenged."

A Lawyer Mom's Musings said...

Who is that glassed man, lamenting all the government services children of immigrants receive here - "a lengthy" list, he said.

Why, just last year he insisted they would not be entitled to Obamacare.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamacare-wont-cover-illegal-immigrants--55021087.html

Paul said...

While I'm not a fan of Reids, most countries don't have anchor baby laws.

In fact, most countries, if you try to get in illegaly, they lock you up in jail for YEARS.

Mick said...

There is no such thing as birthright citizenship for children of 2 aliens in the 14th Amendment. Just like Indians and children of diplomats, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US at birth (they are subject to the jurisdiction of their parent's countries). So why does Althouse fail to make this clear? Is she that unaware of the Constitution? A Law Prof?

Robin said...

No, Mick, prof. Althouse is aware of those things. Plus something you are not, that the Supreme Court does not agree with your interpretation and hasn't for more than a century.