PALM HARBOR, Fla. — A candidate for the Florida House of Representatives says “camps” should be built to house illegal immigrants in Florida until they can be deported.

Marg Baker, who is seeking the Republican nomination for House District 48, says officials could “collect enough illegal aliens until you have enough to ship them back.”

Baker added the housing would be “regular homes like a lot of poor people live in.”

She made the comments earlier this month at a 9-12 Project meeting, an organization founded by conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck.

Baker told The Associated Press, “We need to have camps because there are a lot of these people roaming among us.”

Video:

• Congressman John Dingell: We Need Time To “Control The People”
• Congressman John Dingell: We Need Time To “Control The People”
• Republicans Struggling To Find A Way Out Of The Wilderness
• Republicans Struggling To Find A Way Out Of The Wilderness
• Commander Montgomery Scott Could Not Be Reached For Comment

(CNN) – Mike Huckabee says he’s against changing portions of the Constitution that automatically grant citizenship to children of immigrants born in the United States – a position that puts the potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate at odds some of his party’s most prominent figures.

In an interview that aired on NPR Wednesday, the former Arkansas governor and 2008 White House hopeful said the section of the 14th Amendment currently in question has long been held valid.

“The Supreme Court has decided that, I think, in three different centuries, said Huckabeee. “In every single instance, they have affirmed that if you are born in this country, you are considered to be a citizen. The only option there is to change the constitution.”

Asked specifically if he would favor such an effort to change the constitution, Huckabee said flatly, “No.”

“Let me tell you what I would favor. I would favor having controlled borders,” he said. “But that’s where the federal government has miserably and hopelessly failed us.”

I suspect my agreement with Huckabee will begin and end here.

• Supreme Court Upholds Individual Right To Keep And Bear Arms
• Supreme Court Upholds Individual Right To Keep And Bear Arms
• Rand Paul Is Wrong About Immigration
• Arizona Immigration Law Author’s Next Plan: An Unconstitutional Effort To Ban “Anchor Babies”
• California Gay Marriage Ban Headed Back To Court

I reached much the same conclusion in a post last week at Outside The Beltway.

• Gary Johnson On Freedom Watch With Judge Napolitano
• Judge Andrew Napolitano: Arizona’s Immigration Law Is Unconstitutional
• Arizona’s Immigration Bill Is Unconstitutional And Will Bankrupt The State Of Arizona
• Judge Napolitano On Natural Rights And Why The PATRIOT Act Is Wrong
• Judge Napolitano On Natural Rights And Why The PATRIOT Act Is Wrong

• Don’t You Have To Wear Clothes to Qualify ?
• Don’t You Have To Wear Clothes to Qualify ?
• A Vote For Obama Is A Vote For Change
• A Vote For Obama Is A Vote For Change
• Jon Stewart Slams Arizona Over Immigration Bill

• Lou Dobbs Doesn’t Believe Illegal Immigrants Have Natural Rights
• Ron Paul On The Crisis In Egypt
• John Stossel Explains Why Free Trade Is Good
• The Final Presidential Debate: The Complete Video
• The Final Presidential Debate: The Complete Video

• Reason’s Nick Gillespie Debates Author Of Arizona Immigration Law
• Ron Paul On The Crisis In Egypt
• Lou Dobbs Quits CNN
• Lou Dobbs Quits CNN
• Ron Paul On Lou Dobbs

I do not recognize the argument that says 20 million people who desire to better their lot in life and participate in America’s free enterprise system are “illegal” in nature and should be turned away.  In fact, I take it a step further and say that such a policy of deportation is an utter betrayal of our free-market system, and should be deplored, condemned, and attacked by anyone truly calling themselves a conservative.

What is at stake isn’t the Hispanic voter writ large, as if Hispanics were the monolithic voting bloc Republicans have long erred African-Americans to be.  The Catholic voter is watching as well — 65 million strong  and 1/4 of America’s voting public are watching to see if a conservative ideology, which claims to prize individual liberty at all costs, is willing to betray those principles and use the power of the state to crackdown on the free market.

Which begs the question — should we do this, then what is it that conservatives truly prize?  The free market?  Individual liberty?  Or protectionism?

We’re smarter than draconian immigration laws.  Let the solution be something other than that which treats symptoms without addressing cures.  I firmly believe in conservative ethics, and I also believe very firmly in American exceptionalism.  I also believe that it is those values that are attracting 20 million people to our country like a magnet.

The whole thing is worth reading, so just go do it okay ?

• Arizona’s Immigration Law Is Un-American
• Thoughts On Immigration
• Thoughts On Immigration
• Who Not To Vote For
• Who Not To Vote For

• Shakira Steps Into Arizona Immigration Debate
• Mexico Issues Travel Warning For Arizona
• A Date Which Will Live In Infamy
• A Date Which Will Live In Infamy
• Arizona Legislature Passes Fixes To Immigration Law In Response To Critics

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.”

According to Paul, the proportion of Mexican immigrants that register as Democrats is 3-to-1, so of course “the Democrat Party is for easy citizenship.”

He added: “We’re the only country that I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen. And I think that should stop also.”

Video (immigration discussion begins around 8:30 in):

There’s just one problem with Paul’s position, and it starts with Section One of the 14th Amendment:

1. 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

Then, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court stated:

[T]he Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

(…)

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.

Moreover, there’s this from one of the framer’s of the 14th Amendment:

The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the jurisdiction phrase and stated that it tracked what he believed was already the law of the land. As such, he stated, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

In other words, the children born in the United States are citizens regardless of the citizenship status of their parents and Rand Paul is wrong about this one.

• Arizona Immigration Law Author’s Next Plan: An Unconstitutional Effort To Ban “Anchor Babies”
• Republican Congressman: Deport American Citizens !
• John Stossel & Ron Paul On Immigration
• John Stossel & Ron Paul On Immigration
• Birther Update: They Don’t Believe A Birth Certificate, But They Do Believe MySpace

A new poll from MSNBC seems to indicate that the Republican Party’s immigration position is costing it support among Hispanic voters:

68% of Latinos approve of Obama’s job (compared with 48% of overall respondents and 38% of whites), and they view the Democratic Party favorably by a 54%-21% score (versus 41%-40% among all adults and 34%-48% among whites). And their views of the Republican Party? In the poll, the GOP fav/unfav among Latinos is 22%-44%. What’s more, Latinos think Democrats would do a better job than Republicans in protecting the interests of minorities (by 58%-11%), in representing the opportunity to move up the economic ladder (46%-20%), in dealing with immigration (37%-12%), and in promoting strong moral values (33%-23%). The only advantage they gave Republicans was in enforcing security along the border (31%-20%). And Latinos remain a sleeping — yet growing — political giant: 23% of them aren’t registered voters (compared with 12% of whites and 16% of blacks)

The trend has seen Hispanics move away from the GOP at a steady pace, and the prospect that it might is bad news for the GOP:

– In 2004, Dems held a 22-point edge in party identification among Latinos (49%-27%)
– In 2005, it was 24 points (48%-24%)
– In 2006, it was 26 points (50%-22%)
– In 2007, it was 30 points (52%-22%)
– In 2008, it was 35 points (57%-22%)
– In 2009, it was 31 points (50%-19%)
– And so far in 2010, it has been 36 points (58%-22%).

Smart GOP strategists know this is a problem; the consensus is that Republicans need to capture AT LEAST 35-40% of the vote to win national contests. Yet looking at Republican primaries across the country, GOP candidates aren’t looking at the long-term. In Arizona, John McCain is airing a TV ad declaring “complete the danged fence.” In California, Steve Poizner is comparing Meg Whitman to Mexico’s president in a TV ad criticizing her opposition to the Arizona law, while Whitman has a TV ad saying she “absolutely” opposes amnesty. And in Alabama, gubernatorial candidate Tim James says, “This is Alabama, we speak English. If you want to live here, learn it.” Pete Wilson is an important lesson here, says co-pollster Peter Hart (D): In presidential races from 1952 to 1988, Dems won California just once. After Wilson’s Prop. 187, Republicans haven’t come close to winning the nation’s biggest state. The next California could be Texas, and the GOP can’t afford to have that big state become competitive.

Indeed not.

• Republican Congressman: GOP Is Getting A Second Chance, But We Don’t Deserve It
• GOP Losing Hispanic Support Since Passage Of Arizona Law
• Perhaps The Republicans Should Listen To People Who Managed To Win
• Perhaps The Republicans Should Listen To People Who Managed To Win
• How Barack Obama Helped Defeat Gay Marriage In California