Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Whither the 14th Amendment?

By Scott Wilson

Chalk it up perhaps to election-year bizarreness, but suddenly the capital is debating whether the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ought to be repealed, refined or left alone.

Specifically, the back-and-forth, which started among Senate Republicans and was joined Tuesday by the White House, focuses on the amendment's citizenship clause.

A pair of Republican senators -- Jon Kyl of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- are not so sure the amendment's intent was to grant automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents here illegally.

On Monday, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) raised the stakes, saying, "We ought to take a look at it -- hold hearings, listen to the experts on it."

"I haven't made a final decision about it, but that's something that we clearly need to look at," he told The Hill newspaper. "Regardless of how you feel about the various aspects of immigration reform, I don't think anybody thinks that's something they're comfortable with."

Enter the White House, which has spoken loudly of the need for comprehensive immigration reform but, in the view of some senators and Latino activists, failed to push very hard in favor of the politically difficult legislation during a mid-term election year.

Asked to respond to McConnell's assertion Tuesday that the federal government's lawsuit challenging Arizona's strict immigration law was "a blatant political move to help [Obama's] reelection," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs referred to the senator's comments of the previous day.

"Didn't he ... surmise that we ought to take a look at the 14th Amendment?" Gibbs asked reporters at the daily briefing. "I don't know if that was based on 2010 or 2012, but my hunch is it's based purely on politics."

Okay, so it's all about politics. And immigration politics are difficult for both parties, a wedge issue that divides Republicans and Democrats by geography and philosophy.

So talking about the 14th Amendment - repeal or not to repeal - is a way of talking about immigration to the party bases without much chance that anything will actually happen as a result.

Perfect politics in an election year.

By Scott Wilson  |  August 3, 2010; 3:19 PM ET
Categories:  2010 Election , 44 The Obama Presidency , Barack Obama , Immigration  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Senate poised to confirm Kagan this week
Next: Obama signs Fair Sentencing Act

Comments

The Punitive Ammendments, including the 14th were aimed at those pesky rebels who had read the Constitutionand decided to flee! Like Vermont did the first time! The Carpetbaggers wanted cover for their deconstrution raids on the formerly Confed states' legislatures and treasuries, to expand their base so to speak.
To limit citizenship to the parents who arrive legally would result in our rejoining the sane governments of the rest of the Western World. Try to get permission as a US Citizen to RESIDE in Mexico!It is not race or place, it is sheer self interest for our country! Ask the ame Mexicans how we stole Texas! Oh, the already know. So that's why its REUNION arena!

Posted by: dave_sheehan641 | August 7, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Until our political leaders understand the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment is the underlying cause of illegal immigration, America's immigration system will continue to be ineffective. I will not be supporting any political leader who refuses to see the connection between entering the country illegally to give birth and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Posted by: dh76513 | August 6, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Until our political leaders understand the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment is the underlying cause of illegal immigration, America's immigration system will continue to be ineffective. I will not be supporting any political leader who refuses to see the connection between entering the country illegally to give birth and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Posted by: dh76513 | August 6, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Until our political leaders understand the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment is the underlying cause of illegal immigration, America's immigration system will continue to be ineffective. I will not be supporting any political leader who refuses to see the connection between entering the country illegally to give birth and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Posted by: dh76513 | August 6, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Until our political leaders understand the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment is the underlying cause of illegal immigration, America's immigration system will continue to be ineffective. I will not be supporting any political leader who refuses to see the connection between entering the country illegally to give birth and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Posted by: dh76513 | August 6, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Until our political leaders understand the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment is the underlying cause of illegal immigration, America's immigration system will continue to be ineffective. I will not be supporting any political leader who refuses to see the connection between entering the country illegally to give birth and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Posted by: dh76513 | August 6, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

The fourteenth amendment was about granting citizenship to the freed slaves and their children after the Civil War. Do we forget that Illegal Immigration was not an issue in the 1860's?? We're in the middle of a recession. There is a high unemployment rate and our country is already severely in debt. Can we really afford to also support those who are here illegally and therefore not contributing to taxes?

Posted by: midwest01 | August 5, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

The fourteenth amendment was about granting citizenship to the freed slaves and their children after the Civil War. Do we forget that Illegal Immigration was not an issue in the 1860's?? We're in the middle of a recession. There is a high unemployment rate and our country is already severely in debt. Can we really afford to also support those who are here illegally and therefore not contributing to taxes?

Posted by: midwest01 | August 5, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Wilson:

If you think it's bizarre for Americans to consider changing the law and/or constitution to protect our country against invasion, you've obviously been inside the Beltway too long.

Posted by: Chippewa | August 4, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm just tired of people, obviously totally oblivious to what is going on out there in the country telling the public that "90% of illegal aliens* (Illegal Immigrant is neither politically correct or technically correct in any way) are here doing jobs that Americans "Wont do!". That is the biggest lie out of all of this scheme. I've been out of work for two years and racking up college debt for a degree when there is mass discrimination from Generation X and the Baby Boomers against the Y Gen. What kind of jobs? E-Mail me an Application @ d33p_s0uth @ hotmail .com and I will gladly fill it out and return it because there aren't any jobs any where else, BUD!

Posted by: PMRRMP | August 4, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

I see a lot of the GOP haters are on calling the GOP haters of everything else.

The 14th amendment was made to make the freed slaves here legal citizens. It is not an attack by the GOP on babies as peterg73 states. Most "illegals" do not just work jobs that 90% of americans don't want to as I have seen many state, and the people that are associating the agriculture workers are saying illegals instead of mexican nationals...illegals are from everywhere, even anglo countries, and I knew of illegals from all nationalities, russian, albanian, and mexican and none of them worked jobs no one wanted. They worked very good jobs that any american would have taken and they did it with false SS cards or just writing a number down on the application that was never verified.

Now getting back to the reviewing of the 14th amendment, it should be altered no matter what party you are from. It isn't to "take away" citizenship from current ones that slipped through the gaps...it is to discourage future ones that have the idea in their heads to try to do. You get rid of that aspect of the 14th and you slow the illegal border crossings probably by 10-20% because you take away an incentive to break the law.

It is either that, or a hospital emergency room by law has to help stabilize someone, but does not have to help give full birth. People have done home births or birth with no doctors for centuries. And hospitals help clause is for citizens of the US. They can simply require anyone that is a walk in birther that hasn't gone through normal doctor check ups and such to prove citizenship, and if not, they can remove them from the hospital, hence no birth certificate to prove they were born in the US.

So what is better? To change the 14th to discourage the illegal border crossing to get an automatic US citizen? Or to put these babies more at risk of being denied the medical care of a medical facility?

Posted by: mbahde | August 4, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

For all those that are angry at services going to illegals, it is the government that you should be angry not your fellow human being. People go were they have a better chance for success. It is the government and their entitlement programs that feel free to spend your hard earned money withou abandon. It is you that have allowed your government to run amok. It is always the laws that sound like a good idea that gets us in the most trouble.
http://www.newamerica-now.blogspot.com

Posted by: newamericanow | August 4, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Remember laws are rarely changed for the reasons that are stated. There is nearly always another more sinister issue below the radar. Read the Ammendement and see what would be changed if removed. There is more than citizenship in the ammendement there is also revolution and seccession among others. I personally all we need is the original first ten and common sense that is needed. The Bill of Rights are G-d given and thus apply to all in my humble opinion and can not be taken away regardless of citizenship. If something applies to them it should apply to all. That is the heart of justice. http://www.newamerica-now.blogspot.com

Posted by: newamericanow | August 4, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Remember laws are rarely changed for the reasons that are stated. There is nearly always another more sinister issue below the radar. Read the Ammendement and see what would be changed if removed. There is more than citizenship in the ammendement there is also revolution and seccession among others. I personally all we need is the original first ten and common sense that is needed. The Bill of Rights are G-d given and thus apply to all in my humble opinion and can not be taken away regardless of citizenship. If something applies to them it should apply to all. That is the heart of justice.

Posted by: newamericanow | August 4, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

California spends BILLIONS a year on Medi-Cal to doctors in order for these babies to be born here & then gives the babies more Medi-Cal payments & then welfare meaning the State is not only rewarding the illegals for breaking the law they are supporting the children after they are born. They pay for all the services, school, health care, roads, sewers, electrical, everything that goes along with living in this country & get nothing but $7.00 an hour cash employees for it.

The worst thing about it is that the people who had the jobs they take are the ones that were illegal months before them....

Posted by: martyarnold | August 4, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans have been pandering to the craziest, most reactionary elements in this country for thirty years and this is the result.

Thanks, GOP.

Posted by: neon_bunny | August 4, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I am a Progressive & on most issues I lean very heavy on the left. On this issue I am in total agreement with the hateful right as far as anchor babies are concerned. The 14th was written to help the slaves, not an invasion from Mexico who is unable to take care of their own people so they send them North so as to get them to send money back.

If we deported the 20,000,000 or so back across the border our own unemployment would be nearer to 3% then the 10% it is now & the States would save billions in payments to the unemployed Americans. To that add the billions that are being paid in overall services & that all adds up to deporting the people who have broken the law....

Posted by: martyarnold | August 4, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

I have lived on the border and, yes, people do come to America and have children at our county hospitals so that their children can be American citizens because they are desperately seeking a better life for their children and themselves. The process to become a legal resident is time consuming and very expensive and many simply don't have the money. It costs thousands of dollars.

Do you think that they are responsible for all crime, etc. Not really. They tend to avoid trouble because they want to stay in America, not get deported. It's counterproductive. As for the worries about crime, maybe if Americans stopped sticking cocaine up their noses and heroin in their veins the crime would go down. Maybe if Americans stopped selling guns to everyone who wants one, we would have less crime.

That said, most of the people crossing the border are doing work that most (and I do mean most) Americans are unwilling to do: are you willing to pick lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers in 100+ degree heat for dollars a day? Are you willing to put your own young children in the field to work with you? They are. They are working their tails off so that you can have cheaper produce. They are being hired by corporations that mass produce the chicken you buy. So, who is at fault?

The corporations want cheap labor and we want cheap prices.

As for the GOP, they are simply showing their true colors: white (like in the white sheets and hoods they have hidden in their closets).

Let me offer 2 thoughts:

"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." Martin Niemoeller, German minister

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all they strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30-31

Whose side on you on?

The racist GOP?

Or Jesus?

You choose.

Posted by: abbydelabbey | August 4, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

You're all missing the boat. OF COURSE it's politics. Yet you act as if it's only Republicans who do this sort of thing. The Democrats do this as well, which is why they are currently in power.

You KNOW this will fire up the conservative base and bring out the votes for them. This is the ONLY reason they are doing it. For the votes. So freaking what? Dem's do the same thing.

Don't act all righteous like the republicans are so vile to do this. The dems are just as vile.

Politics as a whole is a business. It's PAID MONEY time for anyone to get elected.

You're stuck with it America, and it ain't gonna change anytime soon.

Posted by: stinkyliberals | August 4, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Question 1?Is this just a political stunt by the minority party, the Republicans ?
Answer: If it is NOT a political stunt then why didn't they introduce this issue when they had the power?

Question 2? Did the framers of the 14th Amendment mean to include Mexican babies born in the USA to illegal mothers ?
Answer: No, it meant to include ALL babies born in the USA. Black and chinese
babies were patrticularily in the news at that time and there was ample opportunity for the framers of the 14th to exclude any class they cared to: they did, Diplomatic and Native Indians.

Question: Does the 14th amendment need to be changed in order to affect the exclusion of Mexican babies born in the USA to "illegals"?
Answer: Most assuredly! If the Constuitutional amendment made them citizens then a constitutional amendment has to "unmake" them. Which takes us back to the first question of whether or not this is just a political stunt and why didn't the Republicans bring up this issue when they were in power.
Answer: It would never stand a chance of passing PERIOD! And they know it. It is STUPID POLITICAL THEATER by a vaccid party trying to destruct a majority party for the mere exercise of destruction.

When the fruit is ripe on the tree and there is a need for cheap labor to bring the crops in there is never a clamor or a din from the Republicans. When the fruit has been picked and there is no need for the cheap labor it is "KICK THEM OUT, SEND THEM BACK, TAKE AWAY THEIR CITIZENSHIP ETC". If this isn't cheap political theater then I don't know what is.
We must not confuse the term "framers of the 14th amendment" with the like term "framers of the US Constitution". They were,are and will always be two distinct groups of Americans.
It is odd that the Republicans are always clamoring for constitutional changes when THEY ARE NOT IN POWER. It is sort of like the term limits issue. The party out of power is always for it,except when thay are in power. By my count the Republicans want(ed) a constitutional change for a)same sex marriage b) abortion c) prayer in school d) soon to be 14th amendment . All this from a party that professes "less government". Soon they will be seeking a constitutional change eliminating all political opposition (UTAH)and enthroning themselves as the only rightful rulers of America,the "American Ruling Class". Then they will change the 14th, kick out all those who don't support them and their BLATANT LIES and they will kick out the little harmless Mexican babies that they hate so much.

In closing I wish they would stand by the graves of our soldiers who have fought and died to protect our Constitution, especially the Mexican American soldiers who were not even American citizens who died, YES DIED, for our country. Perhaps they will change the 14th to include exhumation and ship the bodies back of these "illegals soldiers" who fought for our country. Joe Scovel UT

Posted by: scojos | August 4, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

One person here comes close and another is right on. 1866 was the beginning of the end to State’s sovereignty and placed the Federal government in sole power over the State’s. Since then the Federal government has been slowly striping away at individual rights, the working man has been it’s slave since the taxation of our income from labor. It does not matter what party started it or finishes it. The founders knew well the danger of closing State’s sovereignty and that good intentions (slavery) would most likely be the cause. Today we are all playing the fool and the masters will continue to play us until or if enough of us see the light. “Do not bite at the bait of pleasure till you know there is no hook beneath it.” Thomas Jefferson. Right on is right, fraud is fraud but our masters choose who is guilty of it.

Posted by: richard91459 | August 4, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Leave it to Republicans to start attacking babies. First it was the blacks, then the gays, then came the immigrants, now the party of racists are trying to undo our Constitution so they can criminalize babies! Never again will I vote for this party. NEVER!

Posted by: sammie21
========================================
More proof liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: peterg73 | August 4, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

It is shocking to me that people want to close the US down to others.

Sean Thibodeau reports that Arizona Republicans Seek To Tear Down Statue of Liberty

http://suspiciouspackaging.blogspot.com/

In a shocking move (well from Arizona these days, maybe not so shocking), the same Arizona Republicans that want to further enslave Mexicans and deny person born on United States soil (despite this being the law of the United States for 150 years) have asked that the Statue of Liberty be torn down. Announcing that they detest the pagan symbol of a Roman goddess and detest freedom, the Arizonians want to have a "pure" race so we need to rid the US of unwanteds.

Posted by: simplygeorge | August 4, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

If Democrats would just secure the borders,
this wouldn't be an issue. And, if we know
there's an issue with people coming to this country to have their babies, so the babies can get "automatic citizenship" and
the benefits that come with it---then we have to do something about it.
It shouldn't be this easy to become a citizen of the U.S.

Posted by: ohioan | August 4, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I hope the GOP gets as much "constitutional" flak about this as they have handed out over the past year.

Posted by: LifeBeforePrinciple | August 4, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

The legal citizenship status of current anchor babies, aka, illegal US residents, who claim US Citizenship by birth within US Jurisdiction as of July 17, shall not have your full, legal, US citizenship status denied, but henceforth both parents must be on the path to US citizenship [Cockroach demonstrates incredible agility]. The child must also join the path to citizenship,and may attain citizenship whether or not the parents do. If both parents are already US citizens at the time of birth, then the child is a US citizen at birth, BUT all schools MUST offer US Citizenship courses which meet or exceed US Department of State guidelines for grades K-16, and any child, and his, or her, parents may enroll. [Internet connection terminated unexpectedly] Any law, or requirement, to compell posterity who are born of 100% US Parents to pass citizenship tests shall be sufficient grounds to violently overthrow those making, or enforcing such laws or requirements, HOWEVER, the right to free speech regarding this issue shall not be abridged.

Posted by: randomsample | August 4, 2010 3:25 AM | Report abuse

The legal citizenship status of current anchor babies, aka, illegal US residents, who claim US Citizenship by birth within US Jurisdiction as of July 17, shall not have your full, legal, US citizenship status denied, but henceforth both parents must be on the path to US citizenship [Cockroach demonstrates incredible agility]. The child must also join the path to citizenship,and may attain citizenship whether or not the parents do. If both parents are already US citizens at the time of birth, then the child is a US citizen at birth, BUT all schools MUST offer US Citizenship courses which meet or exceed US Department of State guidelines for grades K-16, and any child, and his, or her, parents may enroll. [Internet connection terminated unexpectedly] Any law, or requirement, to compell posterity who are born of 100% US Parents to pass citizenship tests shall be sufficient grounds to violently overthrow those making, or enforcing such laws or requirements, HOWEVER, the right to free speech regarding this issue shall not be abridged.

Posted by: randomsample | August 4, 2010 3:24 AM | Report abuse

Current anchor babies as of July 17 can keep your citizenship status, but henceforth both parents must be on the path to US citizenship [Cockroach demonstrates incredible agility]. The child must also join the path to citizenship,and may attain citizenship whether or not the parents do. If both parents are already US citizens at the time of birth, then the child is a US citizen at birth, BUT all schools MUST offer US Citizenship courses which meet or exceed US Department of State guidelines for grades K-16, and any child, and his, or her, parents may enroll. [Internet connection terminated unexpectedly] Any law, or requirement, to compell posterity who are born of 100% US Parents to pass citizenship tests shall be sufficient grounds to violently overthrow those making, or enforcing such laws or requirements, HOWEVER, the right to free speech regarding this issue shall not be abridged.

Posted by: randomsample | August 4, 2010 3:15 AM | Report abuse

"It seems like every time I turn around, some idiot from the GOP is trying to take my rights away. I really don't like any of those people, or their leaders. They are distinctly UnAmerican."

It seems like every time *I* turn around, some idiot Democrat is trying to give rights to people who don't even belong in the country. I really don't like these people, or their leaders. They are distinctly UnAmerican.

Posted by: gamz247 | August 4, 2010 2:57 AM | Report abuse

It seems like every time I turn around, some idiot from the GOP is trying to take my rights away. I really don't like any of those people, or their leaders. They are distinctly UnAmerican. They're so far from being conservative that it's an insult to the word when they utter it.

Thankfully, they're a minority. A loud, stupid and angry minority, but still a minority.

I suppose the Statue of Liberty should be relabeled to say something like "Give us your Rich, your White, your Christian, and everyone else should stay away".

Posted by: Nymous | August 4, 2010 2:50 AM | Report abuse

There are a couple of phrases that I think need clarification: First is “anchor babies” - What do these babies restrain? These babies do not reduce the deportability of any other individual. I have yet to see any non-prejudicial reason for such a term to be deployed.

Second is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” - At the time of the passage of the 14th Amendment there were only two classes of people who were exempted, those with recognized diplomatic status, and Native Americans. Diplomatic status essentially means that such a person carries his/her foreign country within his/her person, that is why they are immune from ordinary prosecution. This class offers no precedent for those who seek deny birthright citizenship to “anchor babies”.

Native Americans were engaged in active resistance to the U.S. government. Most of those that weren’t resisting were exempted from taxation. It would take more than 50 years for Native American birthright citizenship to be fully recognized. Now, almost 90 years after that, there is movement to revive their former status and apply it to ‘anchor babies”.

These babies are certainly “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as are their parents if they are here. Unlike the Native Americans, the parents are seeking, not resisting this jurisdiction. Unlike diplomats, they do not carry their former country with them.


Posted by: SCKershaw | August 4, 2010 2:42 AM | Report abuse

While this is more a political stunt to keep illegal immigration in the public eye until Nov, there have long been questions in regards to the 14th.

“Section 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Through the years there have been countless rulings by the Supreme Court in regards to the second sentence of section one, but through out they have danced around the first or more to the point “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, while the Government has just done whatever they wanted in that regard. Every so often a Congressperson brings up this matter but the chances of revising or repealing the 14th are quite a bit lower than Obama carrying South Carolina in 2012.
But they could craft a law that by its very nature would force the Supreme Court to address “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” the fact remains they would need majorities in the house and Senate and it is doubtful they could override a certain Obama veto. But in truth “Birthright” citizenship is not “settled” law at least in regards to the 14th.
Two other things that add to this tangled web, the 14th was to codify the Civil Rights act of 1866 (which was passed over a presidential veto, and interesting reading on the matter) into the Constitution were it would be much harder to repeal. And the second is that the 14th wasn’t to define Citizenship or Naturalization (way to few details) but rather to bring this under the sole authority of the Federal Government and to extend that power through out the States.

Posted by: notthatdum | August 4, 2010 2:41 AM | Report abuse

The mainenance man in my building seems to have a new wife every year.

Of course no one will notice because he works in Montgomery county.

The entire apt/condo building maintenance industry really needs to be looked at. It seems to be an entry job for illegals.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | August 4, 2010 2:36 AM | Report abuse

Undocumented alien workers have long been welcomed by wealthy Republican business owners as a source of cheap, compliant labor. Who could have guessed the laborers would intermarry and produce U.S. citizen offspring? The law is the law. Yet the GOP push to overlook undocumented alien workers and their hiring by business owners, contrary to law, has been wildly successful. The aliens come here because they are able to find jobs. Those are rare in the U.S. and scarce as hen's teeth south of the border. Members of the GOP love being the whip hand that drive people to do what they are told. Bundling undocumented aliens off for a return to their individual homelands, U.S. citizen children or not, is exactly what the GOP wants to see happen except when affected employers object. Putting law violator employers in prison is a definite non-starter. Meanwhile, Liberals are called wusses on the subject of immigration reform. Perhaps restoration of Jim Crow is covertly what the GOP wants from repeal of the 14th Amendment. No doubt the use of slave labor can contribute to an economical business model. Plus wealthy elites get to demonstrate their absolute power over other human beings. That's something they dream about.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | August 4, 2010 2:28 AM | Report abuse

Reality check 101. Can somebody please check and confirm which party in Congress passed the 14th amendment. I bet you it was the radical liberal Republicans after the Civil War to get black votes with the Dixie Democrats in fierce opposition.
We forget how the two parties have changed in 150 years. Now that the Republicans have lost the black vote for good with Obama as president they want to ditch the amendment. It's all about election politics for the masses.

Posted by: cjherzfeld@verizon.net | August 4, 2010 2:18 AM | Report abuse

the intent was not to establish baby factories for illegals to pop out citizens.
===

Maybe they should have added some more commas? That would have cleared things up.

Posted by: mason08 | August 4, 2010 2:01 AM | Report abuse

You might as easily and correctly ask under what jurisdiction is someone here illegally but also with a passport.
===
>> I might, but it's a different question, and I didn't. So there.
==

The formative and qualificating issue is illegal presence, regardless of "documentation". Illegal is illegal.
===
>> Wrong. The issue is presence. Illegal has nothing to do with it. This is basic case law. Wong was born here, thus he was a citizen. His parent's status was found not to matter.
===
The 14th Amendment makes the stipulation of "under the jurisdiction". Thus, Consular admissions such as Ambassadors and their staff are titularly exempt. None other are. Arguably, refugees may be considered to be exempt, within unspecified limits, and also certain Native Americans (Indigenous People) inherent within the territorial bounds of the USA. Yet all of these are arguably not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, yet they remain subject to summary expulsion. In no case are they entitled to birthright citizenship.
===
1) Consulars - agree. Diplomatic Immunity, ergo they are not under the jurisdiction of the USA.
2) An invading army: Clearly, not under the USA's jurisdiction. Children of said army need not apply (after we kick your parents out).
3) Indians - Moot at the time for taxed tribes (they were already US citizens), mooted later for untaxed tribes (Indian Act of 1924). The question was only wether or not a given tribe was under the jurisdiction of congress. They are now most certainly under federal jurisdiction. Federal laws apply on the res just as they do elsewhere, and every American Indian is an American Citizen. Just ask the Iroquois National Lacrosse team about their passport fiasco.
4) All other non-citizens present in the United States of America are not exempt from jurisdiction said nation and a state thereof. This holds whether we know of them or not.

Posted by: mason08 | August 4, 2010 1:56 AM | Report abuse

the intent was not to establish baby factories for illegals to pop out citizens.

Posted by: pofinpa | August 4, 2010 1:53 AM | Report abuse

"If we follow your logic then if an illegal immigrant kills your neighbor, should the police release him/her since that person is NOT subject to this jurisdiction?"

The problem is they CAN'T be adequately subject to this jurisdiction without establishing a known legal residence.

That's why if an illegal murders my neighbor, they probably won't have to worry about the police, unless they're caught in the act

===

If he is caught, then to what jurisdiction is that illegal subject.

Since you seem incapable of answering the question, I'll do it for you: the jurisdiction of The United States of America and a state thereof.

Posted by: mason08 | August 4, 2010 1:35 AM | Report abuse

mason08 wrote, quoting some unattributed person:

If you have a passport, you are here legally, and subject to this jurisdiction.
If you are just here, we have no way of even knowing who you are.
===

You did not answer the question, so I will restate it: under what jurisdiction is someone who is here illegally sans passport?

+++ +++ +++ +++

You might as easily and correctly ask under what jurisdiction is someone here illegally but also with a passport.

The formative and qualificating issue is illegal presence, regardless of "documentation". Illegal is illegal.

The 14th Amendment makes the stipulation of "under the jurisdiction". Thus, Consular admissions such as Ambassadors and their staff are titularly exempt. None other are. Arguably, refugees may be considered to be exempt, within unspecified limits, and also certain Native Americans (Indigenous People) inherent within the territorial bounds of the USA. Yet all of these are arguably not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, yet they remain subject to summary expulsion. In no case are they entitled to birthright citizenship.

Posted by: thardman | August 4, 2010 1:22 AM | Report abuse

"If we follow your logic then if an illegal immigrant kills your neighbor, should the police release him/her since that person is NOT subject to this jurisdiction?"

The problem is they CAN'T be adequately subject to this jurisdiction without establishing a known legal residence.

That's why if an illegal murders my neighbor, they probably won't have to worry about the police, unless they're caught in the act

Posted by: MrMeaner | August 4, 2010 1:20 AM | Report abuse

The GOP thugs have nothing else to offer. It uses these types of hooks to engage in fear and hate mongering. What else does it have to offer?

Posted by: bluethunder1 | August 4, 2010 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Mr Meaner, you wrote "if you have a passport, you are here legally, and subject to this jurisdiction. If you are just here, we have no way of even knowing who you are." If we follow your logic then if an illegal immigrant kills your neighbor, should the police release him/her since that person is NOT subject to this jurisdiction?

Posted by: asaroj | August 4, 2010 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Any cursory reading of the 14th amendment, by anyone with an eighth grade education, makes it clear that it had absolutely nothing to do with immigration.

===

You're right. The word immigrant isn't there at all. It just grants citizenship to people born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. Simple, really...

Posted by: mason08 | August 4, 2010 12:53 AM | Report abuse

If you have a passport, you are here legally, and subject to this jurisdiction.
If you are just here, we have no way of even knowing who you are.
===

You did not answer the question, so I will restate it: under what jurisdiction is someone who is here illegally sans passport?

Posted by: mason08 | August 4, 2010 12:45 AM | Report abuse

A simple Federal law clarifying who is a citizen is all that's needed, which also strips SS numbers and passports from children (adults) who have two alien parents and were erroneously given citizenship simply because they were born on US territory. Minimum requirement for citizenship = one citizen parent, not simply one visa or green card holding parent.

Posted by: greg3 | August 4, 2010 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Illegal aliens are not slaves, their children are not the children of slaves, and none of them qualify as citizens under our immigration laws barring citizenship to people committing fraud for purposes of obtaining citizenship. Otherwise, foreigners in bogus marriages to obtain citizenship would be immune from deportation and the American partners could not be prosecuted. Fraud is fraud, and a potential citizen by way of fraud is illegal. Former slaves were never engaged in illegal actions to become citizens, but the whites who denied them citizenship were doing so unlawfully. The 14th Amendment denied the unlawful actions of whites to deny citizenship rights to American born children of slaves. The Amendment does not permit Wet Foot/Dry Foot fraud for citizenship. So no Constitutional Amendment is necessary to deport anchor babies and their parents.

Posted by: thedefendantX | August 4, 2010 12:30 AM | Report abuse

The article refers to the "bizarre" idea of revisiting the 14th amendment
during an election year.

How truly bizarre it would be, to consider the law in our discussion of immigration reform.

Any cursory reading of the 14th amendment, by anyone with an eighth grade education,
makes it clear that it had absolutely nothing to do with immigration.

This once-great country was able, for a long time, to get by with such sloppy administration.
Now the bills are coming due on so many levels.

Posted by: julian2 | August 4, 2010 12:26 AM | Report abuse

seems pretty clear to me:

"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."
-- Constitution of the United State of America

I don't think they would have written "All persons" if they only intended one or two specific groups.

Posted by: nospam6 | August 4, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Mason
If you have a passport, you are here legally, and subject to this jurisdiction.
If you are just here, we have no way of even knowing who you are.

Posted by: MrMeaner | August 4, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

This is like the flag burning amendment. There is no intention o ever passing that or repealing the 14th amendment. Members of Congress are stupid, but not that stupid. This is about getting the xenophobes out to vote in November.

I was asking my wife this morning if she had any idea why the residents of Arizona don't boycott the businesses that hire illegals. Seems like the people out there could demand employers post their application/approval to the e-verify system and refuse to conduct business if they don't. No jobs, no illegals. Maybe that's something the tea party jerks could organize.

Posted by: James10 | August 4, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

"The court ruled that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship."

Sure, because they were born in Indian territory, to parents who weren't US citizens.

$5 to play again.

Posted by: dubya1938 | August 4, 2010 12:11 AM | Report abuse

The only way the fourteenth amendment, as written, be used as a basis to grant citizenship, is if a a parent is here legally.
If they aren't here legally, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
That is why children who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are excluded.
===

Clearly ambassadors and family are exempted due to diplomatic immunity, but I must ask: what jurisdiction is an illegal Guatemalan ag worker subject to? My US passport certainly says that when I travel, I am subject to that laws of the jurisdiction in which I am traveling.

Posted by: mason08 | August 4, 2010 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Again, for the record, you do not necessarily have to amend the constitution.
My advice would be to find an AG in a state where financial records of medical expenses and state services given to illegals are kept on file. Any medical expenses from childbirths would look good in a suit.
Establish as much in damage as possible.
Then he has to make the argument.

Basically, a state , or a group of states would have to bring suit on the ground that they are wrongly burdened, citing the wording of the amendment.
They would have to convince (ultimately the Supreme Court) that the 1892 case that was cited as precedence for 2 later rulings (Plyer v. Doe--1982, and INS v. Rios Pineda--1985)was misinterpreted by those judges.
That 1892 case involved the children of Chinese immigrants. It was in response to The Chinese Exclusion Act that prohibited immigration from China (1882)
So these people had been here for ten years, and were known.
You can easily establish that the intent of the amendment wasn't to necessitate citizenship upon birth in this country by citing Elk vs. Wilkins. (1884)
The court ruled that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship.

In this climate, I think the case would have a shot in the SCOTUS

Posted by: MrMeaner | August 4, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

"Birthright citizenship will be eliminated within a decade."

You can flush that idea along with yesterdays' lunch. When Latinos reproduce at a rate of 3:1 and non-Latinos are at best 2:1, with perhaps an exception for the odd Muslim? This is going to be a non-issue well before 2020. Wake up and smell the coffee: this nation will be majority-Latino within 5 years.

You'll be lucky if they don't automatically grant US citizenship to every native Spanish-speaker in this hemisphere.

Posted by: dubya1938 | August 4, 2010 12:04 AM | Report abuse

"Should the parents be caught and deported, the child goes with them, thus keeping the family unit together."

US citizens can't be deported. Unless you want to amend the equal protection clause and the right of abode for citizens too? Class A and Class B citizens, where you decide who gets the protections of the constitution?

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | August 4, 2010 12:03 AM | Report abuse

All this Republo Kabuki theater is most amusing.
Yeah, lets deport ALL 11 million (or whatever the number is) of illegals and then enjoy the new power of the American work force to negotiate a healthy rise in pay for itself. And, BTW, those 11 million are not living in tents, so lets enjoy the quick decrease in the cost of housing. LOL. The illegals are accomplishing much of what country club Repubs desire, namely, putting a downward pressure on the cost of labor and an upward pressure on the cost of housing. Ya really think that the REAL Republican party is going to let that riff raff tea bag gang mess up their gravy train? Not freaking likely.

Posted by: rkerg | August 4, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

All this Republo Kabuki theater is most amusing.
Yeah, lets deport ALL 11 million (or whatever the number is) of illegals and then enjoy the new power of the American work force to negotiate a healthy rise in pay for itself. And, BTW, those 11 million are not living in tents, so lets enjoy the quick decrease in the cost of housing. LOL. The illegals are accomplishing much of what country club Repubs desire, namely, putting a downward pressure on the cost of labor and an upward pressure on the cost of housing. Ya really think that the REAL Republican party is going to let that riff raff tea bag gang mess up their gravy train? Not freaking likely.

Posted by: rkerg | August 4, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

All this Republo Kabuki theater is most amusing.
Yeah, lets deport ALL 11 million (or whatever the number is) of illegals and then enjoy the new power of the American work force to negotiate a healthy rise in pay for itself. And, BTW, those 11 million are not living in tents, so lets enjoy the quick decrease in the cost of housing. LOL. The illegals are accomplishing much of what country club Repubs desire, namely, putting a downward pressure on the cost of labor and an upward pressure on the cost of housing. Ya really think that the REAL Republican party is going to let that riff raff tea bag gang mess up their gravy train? Not freaking likely.

Posted by: rkerg | August 3, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

There is another simple alternative. Deport the parents; they have two choices. Take the kid with them, or leave the kid as an orphan. Either way it deprives the parents of the hook to stay here and doesn't reward them for an illegal act.


That's what happens already. Even anchor-babies can't keep the parents in the US if they are here illegally & get caught.

What they do is give the *children* unfettered access to the US, meaning they can petition to get their parents legal status after they turn 18. That cascades as the more family-members are in the US the more of a justification their extended family-members have for petitioning for US visas.

The real issue here is the idea that these children are somehow a bad thing. They're American citizens under the Constitution. They have the same rights and deserve the same respect as any other legal resident. All of these politicians who want to overturn or rollback the 14th amendment are forgetting about their Constitutional obligations. They are to fully-represent these people as well, not try to revoke their citizenship because of the actions of their parents or a quirk in the Constitution. They are just opening themselves up to a massive class-action lawsuit. They might as well run on an anti-Latino platform.

Posted by: dubya1938 | August 3, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Why do people keep referring to the "framers" and "founding fathers" in a discussion about the 14th amendment? Amendment XIV was proposed by Congress in 1866 and adopted in 1868. The framers had been worm food for ~50 years.

Posted by: mason08 | August 3, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah, right Paul. I doubt you would last an hour doing the work many of these illegals do all day, every day. "

That's a pretty-bold statement on the Internet from one anonymous person to another.

So you think that little of a fellow anonymous American citizen, eh? And these Latinos are supermen, by comparison?

Then why not just give up the country now? How do you expect to defeat a horde of Latino supermen who will happily do jobs for days on end that Americans can't even do for an hour?

Posted by: dubya1938 | August 3, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

There is another simple alternative. Deport the parents; they have two choices. Take the kid with them, or leave the kid as an orphan. Either way it deprives the parents of the hook to stay here and doesn't reward them for an illegal act. Since the parents acted illegally, deny them the privilege of ever returning with the kid as their anchor. If they want to be a family, nothing stops them from doing so in their country of origin.

Posted by: tnvret | August 3, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

"This is just another attempt by Republicans to steal the away the voting rights of legal U.S. Citizens that are minorities. Think of how many Americans who had a parent who was an illegal immigrant. Think of all the Americans who had an ancestor who was an illegal immigrant. Being a descendent of an illegal immigrant could make your own citizenship null and void. No more voting rights for you."

There are plenty of US citizens who don't have voting-rights.

Second how would you know which Americans had parents who were illegal immigrants? How would you even have a clue, much less how many of them, what percentage?

This is the problem that the Republicans are facing with this. It's easy enough to know if a child was born in the USA and the birth was lawfully recorded. They can't just sneak over, bend over in the desert have a kid, go back to Mexico and claim that the kid was born here and get a US passport for it. The birth has to be officially recorded as such. You will note that birth certificates do not note whether a parent was here illegally at the time of the birth, not to mention that the father need not be anywhere in sight. What this would come down to is a judicial decision after the fact and even then only in a case where the state brought a challenge to the birth and by extension US citizenship under the 14th amendment.

...can you imagine the Republicans seriously challenging the citizenship of hundreds of thousands, millions of people, in the courts? They might as well just swallow hand-grenades and put themselves out of their misery.

I think that they would be satisfied to ensure that the parents provide proper documentation before the child is granted US citizenship under the 14th amendment. But even that is opening a can of worms as then the question will be were they or were they not here "legally".

They can always just claim that they were here seeking asylum.

Posted by: dubya1938 | August 3, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

law1:

You're correct. It is nearly impossible to change the Constitution. Which is the purpose of it. So instead, I guess Republicans should just give up, watch while unconstitutional laws and regulations continue to pass Congress, and ignore the Constitution.

I'm not saying Republicans (when in power) added regulations that go against the Constitution. Both sides do it. As I said below, we have too many laws. The majority of regulations on our books should be removed and brought back up as amendments of the Constitution. And for those that don't pass the overwhelming odds, well, then we have the 10th Amendment - let States deal with it.

Posted by: HokieDoke | August 3, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

When responding to the author's claim that Republicans are talking about repeal of the 14th Amendment as political posturing to their base, pmendez wrote:

"Nonsense!
Birthright citizenship will be eliminated within a decade. We are winning. Open-border, illegal alien-loving, cosmopolitan elites are losing. By the end of the decade, we will have rid ourselves of illegal aliens, shut legal immigration to a trickle, and will wonder how we let this insanity go on for so long."

What this blogger does not understand is how truly difficult it is to repeal ANY Constitutional provision. First, two thirds of both houses of Congress must agree to pass the amendment. But two thirds of of all 50 states must ratify or approve of such Constitutional provision. There's no way these Republican fools can even get their crazy plans through Congress and they would be even stupider than they are if the thought otherwise. Forget about getting two thirds of the States to ratify. So it does not matter how many racist, uneducated Tea baggers they can get to agree over a bottle of Ripple wine, they have NO chance. In fact, they have a greater chance of getting George Bush reelected in a landslide for a third term than they have of repealing this provision. But of course their base is even less informed then they are so they throw out such garbage for fun and political profit.

Posted by: law1 | August 3, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Actually, we conservative just want the constitution followed.

But we don't do that any more in this country.
We follow judicial decisions.
That's how we got to the point where rulings based on the fourteenth amendment have turned it in to a suicide pact.

We approve of optional prayer in school, because we follow the first amendment, rather than legal precedence that violates it.
For some reason that part where the govt. can't inhibit the free practice of religion gets lost in the progressive translation.

Most other differences could be worked out on the state level, if we recognized the tenth amendment

Posted by: MrMeaner | August 3, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

How can anybody legally benefit from an illegal act? US citizenship for a child resulting from the mother being in the country illegally should not be possible. If you steal another person's property, it does not legally become your property.

Posted by: tnvret | August 3, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Merrylee - We have too many laws and regulations. WAY too many that have been signed in by Congress. Some believe that the founders put the amendment process in the Constitution because any regulations (or rights, liberties, what have you) that aren't in the Constitution should only become law if they become an amendment to the Constitution. For example, gun control. We already have the 2nd amendment. Instead of having 100 laws on the issue, any change should be done to the 2nd amendment directly. Constantly adding regulations to work in addition to or for the purpose of limiting the Constitution makes the Constitution a worthless document. Any big change in U.S. policy should be done through the amendment process, which is what these Republicans are asking/requesting.

Posted by: HokieDoke | August 3, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

If only we could get Republicans/conservatives fired up about amending the constitution to give people in DC representation in Congress.

Always find it interesting that people who go by the moniker Tea Party, don't care about taxation without representation.

Posted by: shadow27 | August 3, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives are a funny lot, they claim to love the constitution and have all sorts of ugly names for people who interpert it differently then the conservatives. Yet, the conservatives have a boat load of amendments they want to make to the constitution. They like it, only not that much. Here they want to make a new amendment to change an amendment. The conservatives want a prayer in school amendment, plus the abortion amendment. Plus there are a whole bunch more the crazies would like to amend. Never ending change to a document which the conservatives hold so dear. Well go ahead that is their right, only they need two thirds of both the house and senate and 38 states to ratify the amendment. This political theater for the sake of an election is only good theater for the stupid. Anyone who knows what it takes to amend the constitution knows the conservatives are only blowing smoke. By the way for the uneducated how to amend the constitution is in the constitution.

And for the ignorant who keeps writing that the framers did not mean for the 14th amendment to allow for illegal immigrants children, you are showing your stupidity. The framers were dead when the 14th amendment was written after the Civil War. The framers put slavery into the constitution, so there needed to be amendments to correct that horrific wrong.

Posted by: merrylees | August 3, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Just as an FYI many of us DEMOCRATS feel the same way about this. I had a friend who's HUSBAND was deported. INS said that their marriage was not recognized in the US because he had no right to be here at the time they were married and as such the laws didn't apply. It should be the same for illegals and their children. Send the whole family back home together. If you're not here legally than the full protections of the constitution and citizenship do not apply to you. This is not about any one race or ethnicity but should apply across the board. I suspect there are a good deal of democrats and independents that agree but are afraid to speak publicly on this.

Posted by: gusanito777 | August 3, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone justify an illegal alien criminal invader suddenly birthing a citizen of which the mother is not one?

The infant belongs to the country of the mother.

Posted by: greatgrandmasue | August 3, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Agreed. It's time to change this.

Posted by: popuquoz | August 3, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm so sick and tired of the idiots hijacking the immigration debate. Repealing the 14th Amendment birthright citizenship clause? Are you out of your f'ing mind? How about a more constitutional approach like repealing the prime driver of illegal immigration: NAFTA. You can't have free trade without the free movement of laborers. NAFTA destroyed Mexican small farmers who turned, in desperation, to emigration, drug gangs or the maquiadores. NAFTA benefited many people too. But the cost is a lot greater than the loss of Midwestern manufacturing jobs. Let's be honest about the relationship between trade policy and immigration. It's direct and inextricable. No amount of deportation or fancy border fence will stop what free trade will overcome.

Either we accept relatively uncontrolled immigration as the "safety valve" for NAFTA, or we repeal our free trade agreements so Mexico can go back to paying off its families to stay put. You can't have both.

Posted by: ElrodinTennessee | August 3, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone justify how an illegal alien criminal invader can birth a citizen?

The infant belongs to the country of the mother.

Posted by: greatgrandmasue | August 3, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone justify how an illegal alien criminal invader can birth a citizen?

The infant belongs to the country of the mother.

Posted by: greatgrandmasue | August 3, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the U.K., Japan and South Korea all deny automatic citizenship to American babies born on their soil.

Is that because they are "racist"?

Posted by: paul65
===========================================

If you are a Democrat, yes! If you are a sane, logical, normal human being, no.

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | August 3, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

"...It is no coincidence that anti-immigration groups with an "us versus them" mentality are the ones that are proposing repeal..." - zperez
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Oh, good gravy. Nobody want's to repeal anything. We want the courts to acknowledge the amendment as written...or baring that, because the courts normally have their collective heads up their collective butts and are in dire need of a Funk and Wagnells, draft legislation that clarifies the amendment.

MrMeaner has it exactly correct in his 9:02 PM post. Round 'em up and head 'em out...Case Closed!

Posted by: sosueme1 | August 3, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely.

We have a situation where pregnant women come across the border to have their babies. Paid for your courtesy of the American tax payers.

We cannot continue down this road. Sorry folks, we're broke.

Is that so hard to understand? Please tell me!

Posted by: Jaymand | August 3, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

This country WAS built by immigrants. LEGAL immigrants.

The 14th was never intended to apply to ILLEGAL immigrants.

If our Government won't do its job and repel the invaders, and that is exactly what ILLEGAL immigrants are, then it is up to the Citizens to do so.

The fact is our Government, Dems and Reps, has become so corrupt they don't care about the Constitution. They should all be cited for perjury for failing to abide by their Oath, arrested, tried, and removed from office. If their replacement does no better then the same thing should be done.

Meanwhile lets round up the invading horde of illegal immigrants and deport them so that we can begin to deal with the REAL problem in this Country. An out-of-control, self-serving, corrupt Government.

Posted by: AEstates | August 3, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause

" 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. "

I was naturalized in the USA. I guess that means I am subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. If I go to a foreign country, does that mean I am no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, and am therefore no longer a citizen, and no longer have to pay taxes? NO! So what does "subject to the jurisdiction mean"? I think it means that the person born in the USA IS subject to the jurisdiction of the USA by virtue of being in the USA, therefore is a citizen. I was born in a foreign country, am a citizen of that country, which recognizes dual citizenship, and was naturalized in the USA by virtue of my parents being US citizens by birth. Whoop de do!

Of course, I don't see where the 14th admendment gives the parents of a child born in the USA any rights to stay in the US, especially if they are here illegally. I am a liberal, and I do not endorse allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the US unless they are contributing members of our society...paying their own way, working and paying into social security and medicare, paying their taxes, and staying out of legal trouble. There are lots of immigrants that do this, which is why we should tailor all immigration laws carefully. However I also believe we need to do everything we can to stop illegal immigration, which comes down to severely fining anyone caught employing illegals, and issuing a national ID card to every citizen. Only solution that makes sense. Anything else is just laughable.

Posted by: Chagasman | August 3, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

As long as the 14th Amendment allows anchor babies, whites will tremble in fear of the very democracy their founding fathers established - that one day they will no longer be in the majority.

We need to adopt the same immigration laws as Mexico - no illegal immigrants or workers with prison and heavy fines/bribes for both the worker and the employer. No anchor babies. Naturalized Mexican citizens can never hold public office.

Who profits from the status quo?

Corporations who contribute to both Parties. NRA gun show profiteer, drug dealers, corrupt politicians on both sides of the border and Mexico.

Americans apparently have "tonto" stamped on their foreheads. We're the laughingstock of Mexicans.

Posted by: areyousaying | August 3, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

here's a proposal: let the right wing have its say on the 14th amendment if they let us lefties determine the meaning of the 2nd amendment! somehow I doubt that they'd agree.

Posted by: eomcmars | August 3, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

In a shocking move (well from Arizona these days, maybe not so shocking), the same Arizona Republicans that want to further enslave Mexicans and deny person born on United States soil (despite this being the law of the United States for 150 years) have asked that the Statue of Liberty be torn down. Announcing that they detest the pagan symbol of a Roman goddess and detest freedom, the Arizonians want to have a "pure" race so we need to rid the US of unwanteds.

http://suspiciouspackaging.blogspot.com/2010/08/arizona-republicans-seek-to-tear-down.html

Posted by: simplygeorge | August 3, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

"Illegal immigrant who killed nun in accident was released by feds"
This was his 3rd offense for drunk driving and still in this country.

It happens over and over again. Of, course the 14th amendment was never meant to support the anchor baby loophole.
But, if it means votes for Democrats, they'd sneak Al Qaeda into our country.

Posted by: jblast2000
==========================================

The anchor baby loop hole MUST be closed. A coworker's in-laws purposely came to the United State to have their baby delivered in the United States just so the child would be an American Citizen by birth, even though they never had any intention of staying. But now when they want to come back and live in the US, or take services, they have their child to use. It is a stupid law put in place by Democrats. It is time to close loops holes such as this. It is time for Americans to say ENOUGH to illegal immigration and foreigners working our system! Too bad our current leadership is too weak to do anything of the sort, since he was an anchor baby for his African Father!! Stupid liberals!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | August 3, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Why have so many forgotten what the word "illegal" means?

Because the term illegal aliens is an innacurate description of someone's immigration status - that is to say, you aren't going to be put in jail just because you're in the country illegally. Yes, we do hold some certain Mexican citizens in jail, because they are either considered a flight risk, prior to deportation, or they may have committed a felony crime.

But no one goes to jail just becuase they don't have a green card, they are just deported.

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | August 3, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Sean Thibodeau reports that Arizona Republicans Seek To Tear Down Statue of Liberty.
http://suspiciouspackaging.blogspot.com/2010/08/arizona-republicans-seek-to-tear-down.html

In a shocking move (well from Arizona these days, maybe not so shocking), the same Arizona Republicans that want to further enslave Mexicans and deny person born on United States soil (despite this being the law of the United States for 150 years) have asked that the Statue of Liberty be torn down. Announcing that they detest the pagan symbol of a Roman goddess and detest freedom, the Arizonians want to have a "pure" race so we need to rid the US of unwanteds.

Posted by: simplygeorge | August 3, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

"Illegal immigrant who killed nun in accident was released by feds"
This was his 3rd offense for drunk driving and still in this country.

It happens over and over again. Of, course the 14th amendment was never meant to support the anchor baby loophole.
But, if it means votes for Democrats, they'd sneak Al Qaeda into our country.

Posted by: jblast2000
==========================================

The anchor baby loop hole MUST be closed. A coworker's in-laws purposely came to the United State to have their baby delivered in the United States just so the child would be an American Citizen by birth, even though they never had any intention of staying. But now when they want to come back and live in the US, or take services, they have their child to use. It is a stupid law put in place by Democrats. It is time to close loops holes such as this. It is time for Americans to say ENOUGH to illegal immigration and foreigners working our system! Too bad our current leadership is too weak to do anything of the sort, since he was an anchor baby for his African Father!! Stupid liberals!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | August 3, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

This obama has turned our country into a bizarre world.

Posted by: mightyheidi | August 3, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Oh please! That's right, folks, President Obama was in office from the enactment of the 14th amendment, all the way through every Supreme and lower court decision.

Or even easier to believe is that every one of these folks in our country from Mexico have arrived after January 20th 2009. Every single last one. Forget the fact that there fewer people crossing the border this year than before.

Do try to test your memory and recall that President Bush wanted to pass an immigration bill, that if folks were here illegally, after meeting certain conditions, some of them monetary could be granted some nature of legitmacy.

It's always something with you guys, whining about voter fraud, or jumping at the chance to tell us all about the "welfare queen" that pays for the groceries with food stamps and drives a brand new care. It's always someone getting something that you're not.

and no, 11 million people out of work does not track directly to the folks that are out of work in this country. I hate to throw this out, but it's so obvious If you have to worry about someone that\ doesen't speak english and is here illegally competing with you for a job, you've got bigger problems than our immigration policy.

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | August 3, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

"Illegal immigrant who killed nun in accident was released by feds"
This was his 3rd offense for drunk driving and still in this country.

It happens over and over again. Of, course the 14th amendment was never meant to support the anchor baby loophole.
But, if it means votes for Democrats, they'd sneak Al Qaeda into our country.

Posted by: jblast2000 | August 3, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Why have so many forgotten what the word "illegal" means? If your illegal you have no rights. Come thru the "front "door of respect and you can earn rights. The 14th amendment has been disrespected far too long and change is overdue. The real shame should go to the legislators, whom have not brought this issue up for discussion sooner. America has turned a blind eye way too long. U.S. citizenship should be awarded based on the citizenship of the parents.

Stop with the racial stuff, the real issue is about respecting the law, not circumventing it. Most who comment here dont know the history of the admendment. Those who follow the rules and come thru the "front" door are still welcome. Stop defending those who disrespect America's laws.

Posted by: lebrown1001 | August 3, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

The only way the fourteenth amendment, as written, be used as a basis to grant citizenship, is if a a parent is here legally.
If they aren't here legally, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
That is why children who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are excluded.
If there is no way to ensure that they follow the same laws, pay the same taxes,...or we can even know who they are, they are not subject to our legal jurisdiction, and are not afforded the rights, nor subject to the restrictions of our constitution

Posted by: MrMeaner | August 3, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Why have so many forgotten what the word "illegal" means? If your illegal you have no rights. Come thru the "front "door of respect and you can earn rights. The 14th amendment has been disrespected far too long and change is overdue. The real shame should go to the legislators, whom have not brought this issue up for discussion sooner. America has turned a blind eye way too long. U.S. citizenship should be awarded based on the citizenship of the parents.

Stop with the racial stuff, the real issue is about respecting the law, not circumventing it. Most who comment here dont know the history of the admendment. Those who follow the rules and come thru the "front" door are still welcome. Stop defending those who disrespect America's laws.

Posted by: lebrown1001 | August 3, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Why have so many forgotten what the word "illegal" means? If your illegal you have no rights. Come thru the "front "door of respect and you can earn rights. The 14th amendment has been disrespected far too long and change is overdue. The real shame should go to the legislators, whom have not brought this issue up for discussion sooner. America has turned a blind eye way too long. U.S. citizenship should be awarded based on the citizenship of the parents.

Stop with the racial stuff, the real issue is about respecting the law, not circumventing it. Most who comment here dont know the history of the admendment. Those who follow the rules and come thru the "front" door are still welcome. Stop defending those who disrespect America's laws.

Posted by: lebrown1001 | August 3, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Why have so many forgotten what the word "illegal" means? If your illegal you have no rights. Come thru the "front "door of respect and you can earn rights. The 14th amendment has been disrespected far too long and change is overdue. The real shame should go to the legislators, whom have not brought this issue up for discussion sooner. America has turned a blind eye way too long. U.S. citizenship should be awarded based on the citizenship of the parents.

Stop with the racial stuff, the real issue is about respecting the law, not circumventing it. Most who comment here dont know the history of the admendment. Those who follow the rules and come thru the "front" door are still welcome. Stop defending those who disrespect America's laws.

Posted by: lebrown1001 | August 3, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Why have so many forgotten what the word "illegal" means? If your illegal you have no rights. Come thru the "front "door of respect and you can earn rights. The 14th amendment has been disrespected far too long and change is overdue. The real shame should go to the legislators, whom have not brought this issue up for discussion sooner. America has turned a blind eye way too long. U.S. citizenship should be awarded based on the citizenship of the parents.

Stop with the racial stuff, the real issue is about respecting the law, not circumventing it. Most who comment here dont know the history of the admendment. Those who follow the rules and come thru the "front" door are still welcome. Stop defending those who disrespect America's laws.

Posted by: lebrown1001 | August 3, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

well all fine and good, but if a person's country of nationality says in there law you have to be born in country to get citizenship
not Via who you mom and dad who have citizenship in said country ,and your born here in the USA then even if the 14th does not rule , there the laws saying we as a country can not make someone a Stateless person(Stateless person is someone who has a lack of citizenship) and that is a treaty.

Posted by: magewuffa | August 3, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

"Illegal immigrant who killed nun in accident was released by feds"
This was his 3rd offense for drunk driving and still in this country.

It happens over and over again. Of, course the 14th amendment was never meant to support the anchor baby loophole.
But, if it means votes for Democrats, they'd sneak Al Qaeda into our country.

Posted by: jblast2000 | August 3, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

It's something like twice a year that I agree with Republicans these days. This is one of them.

Posted by: RMS70 | August 3, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Their is a massive loophole that nobody has foreseen, in the growing controversial issue of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. This has become a giant out of proportion costly " Anchor Baby" racket. So by law the child can get a recorded birth certificate, but that doesn't mean you--CANNOT DEPORT THE ILLEGAL PARENTS OR PARENT. They are still illegal and can be sent on their way? No way are they are going to leave that child behind, so until that child is old enough or their is a guardian in America, that infant parents will not be draining the public welfare system. By law the illegal pregnant Mother cannot be turned away from hospitals because the law requires that they be treated. All uninsured people, regardless of citizenship, receive medical treatment in hospital emergency rooms under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA).

But afterwards the Mother can be sent on her way, which will save taxpayers billions in dollars that taxpayers can least afford. All the undisclosed costs such as low income housing (Section 8), Wic, Tanf, state medical care, food stamps, education and other programs. In 2006 this was a $6 billion dollar "legal flimflam" unfairly supported by US taxpayers. Every state now has been overwhelmed with illegal aliens and its a lie to say their are only 12 million people without documentation. By law the American people may be forced by the misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, but at least the the taxpayers may not have to subsidies the world in citizens and legal resident entitlements. In addition, with the illegal aliens deported and out-of-the country, Americans will not be paying for all the other babies these women have? UNLESS OF COURSE THE PREGNANT MOTHER MANAGES TO SLIP THROUGH THE UNDERMANNED BORDER FENCE AND THEN THE WHOLE CYCLE STARTS AGAIN. Discover the massive costs by looking up the statistics under "ANCHOR BABIES COSTS."

Posted by: infinity555 | August 3, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

now the black helicopter loons want to mess with the constitution.

Posted by: Geopolitics101 | August 3, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why the solution isn't as simple as this: dual citizenship. A child born to illegal alien parents does get US citizenship via the 14th amendment, but also has the citizenship of their parents (let's say the mother should the parents be of different nationalities, assuming neither is a US citizen or legal resident). Should the parents be caught and deported, the child goes with them, thus keeping the family unit together. Once the child becomes an adult, they have the choice to surrender one of the citizenships...if they want to be a US citizen, they give up their other one and have all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of a native-born US citizen. If they give up their US citizenship, then it was their choice, and the 14th amendment has been satisfied.

Posted by: kmcandrew | August 3, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

The illegal immigration issue has NOTHING to do with race. Immigration laws apply to ALL races. There are illegal immigrants in this country of ALL races. That hispanics, particularly those from Mexico, happen to feel picked upon because their de facto invasion of America constitutes the largest bloc of ILLEGAL immigrants is a non-issue. Illegal is illegal. ALL illegal immigrants should be deported. PERIOD!

Posted by: AEstates | August 3, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

There's no need to repeal anything.
We just need to interpret the amendment as written.

Progressives use legal precedence rather than the wording, or even the stated intent of the actual amendment.
After 140 years, the law is perverted to the point where it's main purpose is to make something that's illegal, legal by generations of stare decisis.
(Which is exactly why conservatives want constructionists in the federal courts)

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause

" 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. "

See, words mean things.
Just being here doesn't equate to "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"


Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan--the author of the Citizenship Clause, described the clause as excluding Indians, who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

Google it

Posted by: MrMeaner | August 3, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

These people are radical fascist extremists. They need to be stopped. Our grandparents shot people like them in WWII. There's a reason why they were called `the greatest generation' and it wasn't because they worshiped their own bigotry.

The GOP & their boot licking syncopates call themselves "conservative" yet they are the ones rushing to strip citizens of their rights. This is the point when their lies get revealed for the mask of deception that they are.

Nothing needs to change. They are not conservative, they are not stewards of the US Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. They are radical fascists who need to be shunned.

Posted by: Nymous | August 3, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

The 14th Amendment exists because people were trying to find every more inventive ways to discriminate against blacks. With the Dred Scott decision in 1857, the Supreme Court circumvented any protections blacks had as citizens by declaring that blacks were not citizens. This decision was overturned by the 14th Amendment's grant of birthright citizenship. In other words, the 14th Amendment exists to prevent discrimination - to prevent one portion of the population from finding ways to deny the rights to another portion. It is no coincidence that anti-immigration groups with an "us versus them" mentality are the ones that are proposing repeal.

And the racist motives of those proposing repeal are quite apparent. The main arguments against illegal immigration are 1)illegals take American jobs 2)illegals benefit from American services without contributing through taxes. Neither of these apply to children born in the US if they are given birthright citizenship. If they are citizens, they won't be stealing jobs when they grow up and they will pay taxes. Furthermore, the proposal that parents need to be citizen before you can is completely arbitrary. It simply discriminates against newer immigrants, which reveals the intent of the repeal movement. Why stop at parents? Why not say grandparents? And it seems like there's a big loophole in the proposal, too. If your parents are citizens, then you are too. But if your parents' parents aren't citizens, then your parents aren't citizens, so you aren't a citizen. Since all white Americans are descendants immigrants, one would think Native Americans would be big fans of this proposal.

Until now, this repeal idea has only been a radical, fringe idea. Since the GOP is now talking about it, the media can report it in one of two ways. Option 1) "I guess it's not so radical after all. Let's discuss!" Option 2) "Why is the GOP supporting such a radical policy?" I think it's perfectly clear which approach the media should take and also (sadly) think it's perfectly clear which approach the media will take.

Posted by: zperez | August 3, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Leila1 - you say "At the time the 14th Amendment was passed, immigration was virtually unrestricted."

You are correct that, at the time, immigration was fairly "unrestricted". It was not, however, uncontrolled. There is a VAST difference between unrestricted and uncontrolled. So; yes the authors of the 14th WERE thinking of LEGAL immigrants; only. The concept of an invading horde of ILLEGAL immigrants would never have even been considered as that problem did not exist at that time.

You say "I am proud of the US tradition of jus soli or birthright citizenship, in our case without condition." Me too; actually. However; the IMPLIED condition is the LEGAL residence of the parent(s). Always was and always should be.

You say "I guess you are saying
we have no jurisdiction over these children." Nope. Have jurisdiction and can deport them along with their parent(s). Can strip them of citizenship (although that would require legislation since current immigration law does not provide for that). Certainly America has no duty to raise them or finance that. I will allow, however, that perhaps YOU as an individual have the right to do that provided that you can obtain legal guardianship for that purpose and accept the full financial responsibility.

Posted by: AEstates | August 3, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Where have all the pluckers gone?

Posted by: sameolddoc | August 3, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

"11 million American unemployed. 11 million illegal workers in the U.S. Yes, there IS a connection."

Does this mean that if there where no illegal workers that we'd have 100% employment? Does this also mean that all 11 million illegal workers have figured how take our jobs and live here, but have created no new jobs with their spending?

When did the number of jobs possible become such a limited and static resource?

Posted by: mmk1578 | August 3, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Rethink It?

There AIN'T nothing to rethink, Rethugs!

It's the LAW!

STOP picking at certain parts of the U.S.Constitution, Rethugs, so that you can get it to fit into your narrow minded bigoted racists beliefs!

Posted by: lcarter0311 | August 3, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

At the time the 14th Amendment was passed, immigration was virtually unrestricted. So no, they were not thinking of them. But they did not exclude them either. They could have crafted a very specific amendment and didn't. I am proud of the US tradition of jus soli or birthright citizenship, in our case without condition. Canada has the same thing, as do other nations, and some of our peers had it but have restricted it more recently because of the same nativist sentiments I read here. It will indeed require a constitutional amendment. The 14th specifies that issue of jurisdiction. For all of you opposed to birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, I guess you are saying
we have no jurisdiction over these children. Yet our laws make it so that we have jurisdiction over virtually anyone on our soil (some diplomatic immunity excepting). Are you really saying that if an illegal immigrant commits a crime that we have no jurisdiction? I didn't think so.

What strikes me about this discussion and all the other rabid rants on this issue one finds on the Post is how ahistorical everyone is. In the Ellis Island era, the exact same kinds of denigrating things were said about the waves of perfectly legal immigrants. They are taking our jobs, they don't assimilate, they aren't learning English fast enough, they are criminals...and for some, they are introducing too many more Jews/Catholics, you name it into our Protestant country. If you nativists go to Ellis Island. You will recognize your rhetoric in the propaganda framed in exhibits there. There are ways to address this problem, abolishing jus soli isn't one of them.

Posted by: Leila1 | August 3, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Welcome to the United States of "Really White People Only" America. Really.

Posted by: jade_7243 | August 3, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Welcome to the United States of "Really White People Only" America. Really.

Posted by: jade_7243 | August 3, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

If you place the Amendment within its historical context and the overall "plain language" of the Constitution and its Amendments there is nothing wrong with it.

The Amendment's intent, clearly, was to deal with the fact that LEGAL immigrants, of which there were quite a few at the time, who had not yet gained Citizenship might have children. It made no sense to deny those children citizenship because a) it conflicted with the concept of a 'natural born citizen' and b) it would be impossible for a family to establish citizenship as a whole if each child had to follow the same path to establishing citizenship as the parents.

The prospect of providing citizenship to the children of ILLEGAL immigrants following a de facto invasion of the Country by a foreign country was not even considered. The members of Government, and the Citizenry, honored their Oaths and took defense of America's borders very seriously.

America does not need "immigration reform", it does not need to provide "a path to citizenship" to the Country's invaders. It simply needs the Citizens of this great nation to demand that their elected officials honor their Oaths and do the job that they were elected to do. Foremost; defend our borders and repel the invaders.

If America's elected officials continue to refuse to do their job then, within the Constitution, it is the duty of the citizens to repel the invaders and replace their elected officials.

Simple as that!

Posted by: AEstates | August 3, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

I am on the side of the Republicans on this one - an unusual place for a Dem for sure. There was an article in the Post not all that long ago that spoke of the Chinese sponsoring trips for pregnant moms to drop their babies within our borders just to get citizenship. This cannot be with the framers of the constitution had in mind. Other posts have indicated the origianl intent.

sammie21 among others are big time misinformed - ignorant. I guess sammie would like to pay the hospital and education bills to support these people who did nothing but get born here. Parents aren't here, and they are not contributing to our society. They are just taking.

It has nothing to do with babies, but just people who want to get something for nothing. Sammie - get your head on.

Posted by: janetwall | August 3, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I am on the side of the Republicans on this one - an unusual place for a Dem for sure. There was an article in the Post not all that long ago that spoke of the Chinese sponsoring trips for pregnant moms to drop their babies within our borders just to get citizenship. This cannot be with the framers of the constitution had in mind. Other posts have indicated the origianl intent.

sammie21 among others are big time misinformed - ignorant. I guess sammie would like to pay the hospital and education bills to support these people who did nothing but get born here. Parents aren't here, and they are not contributing to our society. They are just taking.

It has nothing to do with babies, but just people who want to get something for nothing. Sammie - get your head on.

Posted by: janetwall | August 3, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

You'd kind of have to wonder how 2 illegal aliens could produce 1 LEGAL alien.

I think illegal means illegal, and if 2 illegals have a baby in this country it ought to automatically be a citizen of their country of origin.

I don't know exactly what the Amendment says, but if that's it, I'm for it.

It sure would eliminate a lot of confusion, and it would most like stop at least a few of the illegals from running over to this country, just to bear their children and make them U.S. Citizens.


Posted by: lindalovejones | August 3, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

"Also, if you feel that an illegal immigrant is taking your job, then they're happy to let you take it back.

http://www.takeourjobs.org"

It's a great idea, but I don't see where they will be sending the illegal back. In fact that's not explained at all.

Or does the illegal get to go on welfare then?

Of course, that's no different than the present. We have illegals taking services while citizens work and pay taxes to support them.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | August 3, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Great idea. Revise or repeal the ammendment as long as it excludes anchor babies. An earlier poster is very wrong in thinking this will have little impact on illegal aliens coming to the US. The men come to work, the women come to drop anchor babies. Fix this loophole and start fining those who employ illegals, then we will be on the right track. Illegal aliens are not immigrants.

Posted by: ex-Navy | August 3, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

But remember, to repeal a Constitutional Amendment, it takes a Constitutional Amendment, which means approval by 2/3 of the US House, and then approval by 2/3 of the US Senate, and then followed by approval by 3/4 of the states (right now, that means 38 states need to pass the Amendment for it to go into effect). Good luck doing that.

Posted by: critter69 | August 3, 2010 6:48 PM
=======

Or ... much faster and equally effective, it can be handed up to the Supreme Court for an Interpretation.

Posted by: asmith1 | August 3, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Changing the law so that women here illegally would not gain American citizenship for their children would have a small dent on the illegal immigration problem, but probably not a significant one. Ultimately, most of the illegal immigrants are here for economic reasons, and while citizenship for babies born here is a bonus, illegal immigrants seem quite content to carry their non-citizen children over the border with them. They will keep coming.

This would put an end to anchor babies, but it would also add to the illegal immigrant sob stories. Children born in the U.S., but without citizenship, would become something of an outsider class. They might not even have official citizenship in any country, depending on how Mexico handled them. We'd end up with kids born here who'd never even have been to Mexico, and who might even speak limited or no Spanish, and yet they'd be under deportation proceedings. The situation would prove pretty ugly.

Japan has a similar situation with ethnic Koreans who have lived in Japan for generations, but none of them have citizenship because citizenship requires being born to someone with a family register, which non-citizens don't have. Japan gives these people special status to stay in the country, so they are there legally, but on a Korean passport. They form a kind of underclass, even though many are virtually indistinguishable from Japanese citizens in every other way. It's a problem, and Japan's very tight citizenship requirements don't make the problem go away.

What's more, quite a few of the babies born to foreign mothers seeking citizenship for their children are actually born legally. Expectant mothers travel here from Korean and China and elsewhere on valid visas, and then give birth. The mother's visa is valid, but temporary, so would the child still be an American citizen? Or are we going to tighten the citizenship clause to the point that only citizens and permanent residents confer citizenship on their children?

These are valid questions. The 14th Amendment was written at a time when immigration was desired in greater numbers in the United States, and when immigration laws and concerns were less sophisticated and challenging. The policy deserves new consideration, but I don't think it will ultimately solve much in the immigration problems because the vast majority of people arriving illegally do so for jobs, and citizenship is secondary.

Posted by: blert | August 3, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Why do people think that just because other countries don’t allow automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants - born within their country - that the USA should follow suit? The difference between the USA, and other countries, is that THIS COUNTRY WAS BUILT ON THE BACKS OF IMMIGRANTS (“illegal”, or otherwise).

Posted by: BasicInstinct | August 3, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Why do people think that just because other countries don’t allow automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants - born within their country - that the USA should follow suit? The difference between the USA, and other countries, is that THIS COUNTRY WAS BUILT ON THE BACKS OF IMMIGRANTS (“illegal”, or otherwise).

Posted by: BasicInstinct | August 3, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

I keep screwing up. Here is a good amendment:

"Congress may by law determine which children born in the United States to parents who are not United States citizens shall receive United States citizenship, and upon what terms they shall receive it; however, such legislation shall not operate to remove United States citizenship from citizens who obtained it prior to the effective date of such legislation."

Posted by: Nemo24601 | August 3, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse


Actually, just being born in the US should not automatically convey citizenship, regardless of the status of the parents. Citizenship should be awarded for persons who have served for 20 years in the military, performed some great noble deed (like walk on the moon) or have a prodigious wealth. All others may be denizens, but not citizens. Only citizens may vote.

Citizenship should be granted by the Emperor, in magnificent yearly ceremonies. Persons may be nominated by citizenship by their Senators.

Also, citizens should not have to pay taxes.

Heil the Party, Praise the State!

Rome too fell.

Posted by: bruce72 | August 3, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I meant:

"Congress may by law determine which children born in the United States to parents who are not United States Citizen shall receive United States citizenship, and upon what terms they shall receive it; however, such legislation shall not operate to remove United States citizenship from citizens who obtained it prior to the effective date of such legislation."

Posted by: Nemo24601 | August 3, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Very simple. How about:

"Congress may by law provide for determining which, and upon what terms, children born in the United States to parents who are not United States citizens shall receive United States citizenship, however, such legislation shall not operate to remove United States citizenship from citizens who obtained it prior to the effective date of such legislation."

Posted by: Nemo24601 | August 3, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Very simple. How about:

"Congress may by law provide for determining which, and upon what terms, children born in the United States to parents who are not United States Citizen shall receive United States citizenship, however, such legislation shall not operate to remove United States citizenship from citizens who obtained it prior to the effective date of such legislation."

Posted by: Nemo24601 | August 3, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Can someone tell me what sense does it make for women the world over to come here and have children for the purpose of becoming citizens?

Posted by: cleancut77 | August 3, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I also just heard that Koreans come here to give birth, so their child will be an American citizen and won't have to serve in the Korean army! This is getting out of hand. Seems to me that if one parent (not necessarily just the mother) is a legal citizen, then the child should be considered an American citizen.

Posted by: sharonsj1 | August 3, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Lordy, lordy, lordy, the revisionist history abounds.

The 14th exists to counter the horrid Dred Scott Decision and no one had Mexican anchor babies in mind at the time. Well guess what, all the African-Americans and their decedents are now citizens so I guess we can at least clarify what they intended in 1868. And, oh yeah, the Framers of the Constitution didn’t have a damn thing to do with it…I’m quite certain they were all dead.

In any case, democrats, you’re on the wrong side of this issue and please continue to be…it’s gonna’ bite ya’ in the butt!

Posted by: sosueme1 | August 3, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes when you pass a law, there are unintended or unforeseen consequences. Some of those consequences are good. Some of those consequences are bad. But until the law is repealed, it is still on the books, and needs to be enforced. I thought all Conservatards were against anyone not obeying any law on the books? You know, that phrase that became popular with Tricky Dick - "Law and Order"?

Anyone want to bring back the 18th Amendment? It was ratified on 1/16/1919.

But then, people started to realize that maybe the 18th Amendment might not have been a good idea. But until it was FORMALLY repealed on 12/5/1933 by means of the 21st Amendment, it was the law of the land, and enforced.

Want to overturn the 14th Amendment? Then repeal it.

But remember, to repeal a Constitutional Amendment, it takes a Constitutional Amendment, which means approval by 2/3 of the US House, and then approval by 2/3 of the US Senate, and then followed by approval by 3/4 of the states (right now, that means 38 states need to pass the Amendment for it to go into effect). Good luck doing that.

Oh, and 'chrisford'? No, you do NOT understand how liberals think.

Posted by: critter69 | August 3, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

These so-called "black leaders" never cared about nor done aything for black people. The only people that they have done anything for is themselves, and when they get caught, they yell racism, such as we have with this Waters and this Rangel and all the rest. Go to the districts which these two and all the rest of these so-called black leaders represent, and take a look at how many illegal aliens carrying babies in their guts, pushing them in strollers, dragging another two or three in tow, and none speaking a syllable of english. But those same neighborhoods may as well be pre 1950s Mississipi and Alabama as far as young blacks are concerned, because they are being executed on a daily basis, right under the nose of their so-called black leaders. When has Obama said anything about the killing of blacks in Chicage, yet he has so time on his hands for Phoenix and Tucson.

Posted by: hared | August 3, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I read somewhere recently that wealthy Chinese couples are coming to America to give birth to their children on American soil, solely for the purpose of making their children American citizens - then they return home. I don't think this is what our forefathers intended when they said anyone born here should be an automatic citizen.

Posted by: clematis77 | August 3, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

I am a liberal Democrat. Democrats are the party of Inclusion and tolerance; Republicans are the party of exclusion and intolerance. These is a statement which is broadly true.

I support 100% the idea that parents must be in this country legally before the child can be considered a US citizen. I do not believe that any public services - ANY - should be available to people illegaly in this country or to their children. If you make your way legally to this country, I welcome you. If you snuck in, my opinion is that you should be put on the next plane back to wherever you came from, and dedicate your efforts toward making it a better place.

Posted by: rgfox555 | August 3, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

I am a liberal Democrat. Democrats are the party of Inclusion and tolerance; Republicans are the party of exclusion and intolerance. These is a statement which is broadly true.

I support 100% the idea that parents must be in this country legally before the child can be considered a US citizen. I do not believe that any public services - ANY - should be available to people illegaly in this country or to their children. If you make your way legally to this country, I welcome you. If you snuck in, my opinion is that you should be put on the next plane back to wherever you came from, and dedicate your efforts toward making it a better place.

Posted by: rgfox555 | August 3, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

I am a liberal Democrat. Democrats are the party of Inclusion and tolerance; Republicans are the party of exclusion and intolerance. These is a statement which is broadly true.

I support 100% the idea that parents must be in this country legally before the child can be considered a US citizen. I do not believe that any public services - ANY - should be available to people illegaly in this country or to their children. If you make your way legally to this country, I welcome you. If you snuck in, my opinion is that you should be put on the next plane back to wherever you came from, and dedicate your efforts toward making it a better place.

Posted by: rgfox555 | August 3, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

.

Hey Democrats,

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Tuesday notified an Arizona sheriff's office known for its efforts against illegal immigrants that it has refused to cooperate with a civil rights investigation, is not in compliance with federal law and the department is threatening to sue.

BYE BYE DEMOCRATS

.

Posted by: kstobbe1 | August 3, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

I am a liberal Democrat. Democrats are the party of Inclusion and tolerance; Republicans are the party of exclusion and intolerance. These is a statement which is broadly true.

I support 100% the idea that parents must be in this country legally before the child can be considered a US citizen. I do not believe that any public services - ANY - should be available to people illegaly in this country or to their children. If you make your way legally to this country, I welcome you. If you snuck in, my opinion is that you should be put on the next plane back to wherever you came from, and dedicate your efforts toward making it a better place.

Posted by: rgfox555 | August 3, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Can someone tell me what sense does it make for women the world over to come here and have children for the purpose of becoming citizens?

Posted by: cleancut77 | August 3, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

"When America was new, growing in strength as a superpower and everything was "Made in the U.S.A.", we had white and black migrants who toiled the field and in factories and professions."

Part of the problem is that a large number of employers believe that illegals are more reliable, harder workers who accept supervision better than the white and black and 2nd Gen Hispanic "underclass".
The problem is not just illegals being a net drain on the state and national coffers - consuming more value than they pay in taxes, but the drain on society of those who would be working, but for the illegals and the welfare state backing up their prolonged existance in the ranks of the unemployed.

Of the Open Borders people, the voiciferous backers who truly mystify me are the black leaders. In city after city, illegals and past-amnestied illegals, refugees, parents of anchor babies have displaced blacks from industry after industry outside "government jobs". You have some cities with 100% illegals employed and young black male aged 17-25 at 48-55% jobless. Many never have had a job in their lives.

A Jewish pal who I rock climb with illustrates the problem. Known him for 20 years. He took over his Dad's carpet business, and when I had carpets installed in my house and several friends places in the late 80s, early 90s he gave me a good deal. Back then, all his store employees and installers were black. Many were rehab people from Fortune Society. Many were Mississippi Delta guys. The guy and his owner-Dad were liberal as heck. Card carrying ACLU, born in NYC, grand-dad met Trotsky, the Rosenbergs were - innocent kind of liberal.

When I called in 2008 for new carpets in a new house I bought in Manassas, the store had 1 older black clerk left and two hispanics, One a Peruvian who spoke excellent English who had "overstayed his grad student visa a bit"..The carpet installation crew was all Mexican. One guy, the foreman, spoke English.
My rock climbing pal had talked about this several times in general terms. He cared deeply about blacks, their betterment, and all the right liberal stances..but had been saying for years how "hard-working, great to work with, right attitude even as wages had to be frozen to help the bottom line for a decade...Mexicans are not like any stereotype "racists have" always being "on time" - and talking on rock climbs how generally wonderful his "immigrant" people were.
I didn't realize how wonderful he thought them until I saw he had done a complete swapout of blacks for hispanics except one (the older guy who was friends with his dad and the single surviving black employee.)
Asked about what happened to all the black employees..."they moved on". And he and his Dad "still felt for them, great workers" better attitudes than recent black applicants. And the welfare and betterment of blacks was a "big reason he and everyone in his family voted for Obama" after "the bad Bush years".

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | August 3, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

The racists (no other word) are really grasping for straws now...
Once AGAIN, if the immigrants were coming from europe (i.e. WHITE)...there would be no problem for the right...

Posted by: kase | August 3, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Children born here of illegal parents should not become instant citizens. If the father is legal, then the child can stay here until he/she is old enough to take their oath of citizenship. If the mother is illegal, then both mother and child gets deported, and that must be retroactive. The days of American taxpayers paying for the children of illegal foreigners are over, and it will be either the ballot, or it will be the bullet.

Posted by: hared | August 3, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Big Business wants both the 13th and 14th gone.

Slaves were once tied to the land, now wage slaves (of all colors) are to be tied to their factories (and feel "lucky" to have a job).

When the South Plantation system lost, the Northern system of Involuntary Servitude won.

Posted by: gannon_dick | August 3, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse


It's clear that the 14th Amendment should have the first paragraph modified to require that the mother must be legally present in the USA in order for the birthright citizenship to apply.

This is more generous than requiring that the mother be a citizen or Legal Immigrant. Under this generous policy, legal Visa holders could give birth to US citizens. Perhaps an additional clause will be necessary, to prohibit and deny birthright citizenship in the case of "US baby birthing vacations", a sad commonplace nowadays.

Other than that codocil amendment to clarify and deny 'anchor babies', the 14th Amendment should be left as is./

Posted by: thardman | August 3, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

I would support this proposal with two caveats.

1. Remove the Jim Crow exception in the 13th Amendment. "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"

13th Amendment
Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. An Amendment for Universal Suffrage in America. No American can be denied their right to vote in a federal election. Without exception.

Otherwise removing the 14th Amendment is pure racism and the senators who advocate it should be impeached for violating their oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.

Posted by: aahpat | August 3, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

DL49@5:10pm

Excellent comment. yes, let's get some numbers and then start discussion.

Posted by: drc231 | August 3, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Also, if you feel that an illegal immigrant is taking your job, then they're happy to let you take it back.

http://www.takeourjobs.org

Every unemployed American should be doing this, but they're not. Instead, they're crowing about repealing the 14th Amendment and taking away citizenship and voting rights from Latino Americans, among others.

I'd love to see the Americans complaining about illegal immigrants go work in the fields for a wage low enough to make goods at a price that is globally competitive. Either that or the U.S loses all it's farming jobs because other countries have significantly lower labor costs.

Posted by: paulflorez | August 3, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Also, if you feel that an illegal immigrant is taking your job, then they're happy to let you take it back.

http://www.takeourjobs.org

Every unemployed American should be doing this, but they're not. Instead, they're crowing about repealing the 14th Amendment and taking away citizenship and voting rights from Latino Americans, among others.

I'd love to see the Americans complaining about illegal immigrants

Posted by: paulflorez | August 3, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I can not comprehend why would the Republicans attempt to attack the Constitution in this manner. First, most of those Western/Southern States were owned by Mexico. The Lopez, and other Surnames of Spanish decent were in those States before the Smith was in New England.....Learn the true history. But back to the issue as an independent and one who does not trust the R's or the D's I find it appalling that after several decades of exploiting the illegal work force we now want to exploit them even further by removing them out of their families. Yes we do need reform, but not by attacking the 14th amendment specially section 1. Who will pick up the pesticide cover vegetables? Not me! And not at a minimum wage, which they don't even qualify for. Are you ready to pay $10 for a head of lettuce? We need NAFTA to be checked again, and any company/corp. who have left this country to hire $2 per hour workers should pay a heavy fine with a tax compatible as if they stayed here. God & the People first.

Posted by: delmaroeb | August 3, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

These aszwipes are so worried about these anchor babies while 600,000+ federal taxpaying DC residents, who are citizens of the US, are denied voting representation by these very same blisters. Go to ...., blisters!

Posted by: johng1 | August 3, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

arizona3737 says, “When America was new, growing in strength as a superpower and everything was "Made in the U.S.A."

Huh? Holy cow do you ever need a history lesson. FYI, there was a long period of time between America being new and America being a super power. Where did you go to school, Glenn Beck University?


arizona3737 says, “…We had white and black migrants who toiled the field.”

What? Those black migrants were called slaves. America’s education system has really let you down. You might want to consider finding whoever it was that ran the school system you attended and slapping them for making you look so foolish.

Posted by: nisleib | August 3, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

There perhaps is nothing more the Open Borders crowd wants than to frame the debate as requiring a formal Amendment of the 14th Amendment to pass. Because Open Borders sell-outs KNOW that any Amending process can be crippled by organized opposition. Since 1962 (Repeal of the Poll Tax), no Constitutional Amendment has passed in the face of any substantial opposition. Knowledge of this is what has helped empower special interest groups and the sending of billions to not just paralyze and sway Congress, but stand ready to cripple US foreign policy special interests object to and cripple any Amendment organized groups oppose in the face of huge popular support for such Amendments.
See the Equal Rights Amendment, Balanced Budget Amendment, Presidential Line Item Veto Amendment, Succession of Government if DC is attacked Amendment, Flag Burning Amendment.

Lawyers can tie up votes in States for years, the Senate can bottle it up in committee for decades, lawyers appealing in Courts can get legislatures to wait while "courts deliberate" on Amendment process issues for half a decade. Then new legislatures can be steered by special interests to repeal a vote on Constitutional Amendment.

If liberals can shape the narrative, aided by clueless conservatives who say "only a formal Amendment will stop anchor babies" - then the Open Borders crowd wins. It would take 20 more years of invasion while this is put on Congress, States, and Courts to do a formal Amendment process.
The thing that has to happen is a determination of if the 14th applies to give birthright citizenship to spawn of peaceful or violent military invaders getting across US Borders. Even anchor baby tourism. Chinese have set up 3 birthing centers on the West Coast. For 3,000 dollars, well-to-do pregnant Taiwanese, Mainland Chinese, and overseas Chinese in 3rd world lands like Uganda can come and leave with an Insta-Citizen American who not only has a passport, but is his parents passport to free social security and Medicare in later years.

1.2 billion people wanting into the US can, if they get here, find time to drop an anchor baby, then wait on the anchor babies to eventually "reunify" all family in the US. If they plop out a special needs baby or one that will need extensive free medical care, or show they and their "Insta-citizen" face hardship in Oxacala or Sanna Yemen or Quetta Pakistan..the whole family gets to stay right away.

It is a looming National Emergency.
If goverment does not deal with this and several other colossal failures of the Fed Gov't to function properly...the Tea Party IS the harbinger of the more-possible-every Day 3rd American Revolutionary War. (Civil War was the 2nd one.)

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | August 3, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

This is just another attempt by Republicans to steal the away the voting rights of legal U.S. Citizens that are minorities. Think of how many Americans who had a parent who was an illegal immigrant. Think of all the Americans who had an ancestor who was an illegal immigrant. Being a descendent of an illegal immigrant could make your own citizenship null and void. No more voting rights for you.

Demographics show the Republican base is shrinking fast and the party sees the writing on the wall. While Bush won his elections with a significant share of the latino vote, Republicans seem hell bent on throwing Latino Americans, and their votes, under the bus. Even latinos who want illegal immigration to be stopped were scared by SB1070. Republicans seem to have given up on winning Latino American votes and instead and trying to take our right to vote away from is. They won the 2000 election by taking away the right to vote from U.S. Citizens, it seems they're going to try to do that again, specifically to Latinos.

There is a much easier way to handle the illegal immigration problem: require eVerify of all employees and fine/imprison any employer who encourages people to come to the country illegally or commits fraud, end all anti-competitive farm subsidies and watch the farm jobs rush back over to Mexico to take advantage of the cheaper labor and most of the illegal immigrants will follow. Republicans will never do either of these things though, they don't want to punish the Americans who break the laws by hiring illegal immigrants. They don't want to take away the cheap labor from their big business buddies either. Republicans would rather demonize all latinos and talk about repealing the 14th Amendment.

Posted by: paulflorez | August 3, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

arizona3737 - If you live in Arizona, and you are white, then YOU are the immigrant.

But you do raise a point worth discussion: Will American corporations let anything stop them from getting their cheap labor? They relly upon the illegals you so hate, what will the corporations do if they can't get their labor here?

I'd guess they would just move to another country, which would wipe out a lot of jobs here in the US.

Posted by: nisleib | August 3, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Republicans want to re-think the 14th Amendment?

Can we re-think Republicans? Their slash and burn philosophy? The if-I-can't-have-my-way-I'll-destroy-everything-around-me attitude, normally possessed by 2 year olds, has gotta stop.

We have an economic crisis here, and you're not helping GOP.

Posted by: quiet1 | August 3, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

The 14th Amendment needs revision to rid the country of anchor babies....

Posted by: WildBill1 | August 3, 2010 5:33 PM
==========================================
Just a question of timing.

Some are laying the anchors now, some did it in the past.

Naturalized citizens are the only legal ones.

Posted by: kishorgala | August 3, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

The 14th amendment is mostly good. Only the first sentence should be revised. But it would be easier for Washington to just enforce immigration laws rather than engage in legal battles with states who need to try to enforce laws.

I say repeal the 16th amendment and the Commerce Clause, and revise, clarify, and strengthen state and citizen rights in the 10th amendment.

Posted by: jazbond007 | August 3, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

When America was new, growing in strength as a superpower and everything was "Made in the U.S.A.", we had white and black migrants who toiled the field. Then the government allowed businesses to bring in immigrants who were paid a lot less without the grumbles of unions and worker's rights - illegal migration okayed by big businesses via our government. We've done it before and we can do it again. A lot of people out of work and giving people jobs and pride in the American way gives people the passion and desire to be an American. Plus, there are varios machinery that also does some of the work migrants do but businesses don't want to invest the money in it.

So, to all those people who know migrants or illegals and are taking up for them, you don't have to worry about Americans and what we'll do if we need something picked, or sewn or whatever - we've done it before we'll do it. We'll adapt to being the strong country we once were. We've just become soft. It's OUR COUNTRY and what we'll do with it is our concern, not another country's or citizens. Mexico has more than its share of problems and I think fixing things should always start at home.

Posted by: arizona3737 | August 3, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

When America was new, growing in strength as a superpower and everything was "Made in the U.S.A.", we had white and black migrants who toiled the field. Then the government allowed businesses to bring in immigrants who were paid a lot less without the grumbles of unions and worker's rights - illegal migration okayed by big businesses via our government. We've done it before and we can do it again. A lot of people out of work and giving people jobs and pride in the American way gives people the passion and desire to be an American. Plus, there are varios machinery that also does some of the work migrants do but businesses don't want to invest the money in it.

So, to all those people who know migrants or illegals and are taking up for them, you don't have to worry about Americans and what we'll do if we need something picked, or sewn or whatever - we've done it before we'll do it. We'll adapt to being the strong country we once were. We've just become soft. It's OUR COUNTRY and what we'll do with it is our concern, not another country's or citizens. Mexico has more than its share of problems and I think fixing things should always start at home.

Posted by: arizona3737 | August 3, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Get rid of it! While we're at it, repeal the 19th amendment! Who needs women voting anyway? The 15th amendment giving minorities the right to vote has always been a bother. Oh, and let's nix the 26th, too many young folks voting is never good for the country right?

Posted by: Dr_Bob | August 3, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

What the right wing Republicans really want is to repeal the 14th, 15th AND 13th Amendments.

Posted by: twm1 | August 3, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

These Republicans are sooo stupid. Our economy is in distress and we have a huge national debt(that their guy started) and all they can talk about is citizenship requirements?? Where are their brains??

Posted by: cmsatown | August 3, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

paulflorez - yeah, this is all just a part of the "Southern Strategy."

Every few years a prominant Republican (Mehlman, Steele) apologizes for the 40 years of race baiting that is the Southern Strategy, then they keep doing it. Usually they try to make it look like it is Fox news, not the GOP, that is behind it. This time, however, they are at least being honest about their Southern Strategy.


kishorgala - You are correct. Unless one is either naturalized or native American, one wouldn't be a citizen. This is, after all, a nation of immigrants.

Posted by: nisleib | August 3, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

The 14th Amendment needs revision to rid the country of anchor babies....

Posted by: WildBill1 | August 3, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, this one and one more condition.......

.......and the country goes back to the Native Indians. And the Mexicans!

Posted by: kishorgala | August 3, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

This is just another attempt by Republicans to steal the away the voting rights of legal U.S. Citizens that are minorities. Think of how many Americans who had a parent who was an illegal immigrant. Think of all the Americans who had an ancestor who was an illegal immigrant. Being a descendent of an illegal immigrant could make your own citizenship null and void. No more voting rights for you.

The Republican base is shrinking fast and the party sees the writing on the wall.

Posted by: paulflorez | August 3, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Looks like only the naturalized citizens can stay here. Only they have the papers to prove their citizenship. Everyone else is here by birth-right.

Looks to me I'll have the entire block to myself. Select a house to spend the night in. It'd be lonely, but I'm not complaining.

Posted by: kishorgala | August 3, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

If I understand liberal thinking, if a new land bridge arose across the Bering Straight and tens of millions of N Koreans, Chinese, Russians poured across illegally to do "the jobs Americans once did but not for the new lowered wages" - then it would be OK to stop the Russians. And question any whites meandering around the neighborhood with thick Russian accents, no documents, taking all the port jobs at half wages..

But not stop the tens of millions of Chinese and NORKS boiling across the new land bridge.
That would be racist. And questioning any already here with no ability to speak English, no papers - would be profiling.

And if the Chinese or NORKS ever did invade and the military brought their soldiers women and other pregnant Chinese to plop out anchor babies - we could not try attacking and driving them off US soil for fear of hitting the illegal's "Insta-Citizens" and fear that the anchor babies would lose the support of their foreign mommies and daddies?

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | August 3, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

It's pretty absurd that a woman can potentially enter this country illegally, 9 months pregant, lay down on the ground just on the U.S. side of the border and have a baby that automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. That child is then elligible for all the social welfare programs available in this country. I'm pretty sure the framers of the constitution didn't mean for the 14th amendment to be interperted in this way but unfortunately it is and I bet the effort to change it would get a lot of support from the U.S. voter. Very few countries in the world offer birthright citizinship. Mexico doesn't.

Posted by: RobT1 | August 3, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

This obama has turned our country into a bizarre world.

Posted by: mightyheidi | August 3, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

It's pretty absurd that a woman can potentially enter this country illegally, 9 months pregant, lay down on the ground just on the U.S. side of the border and have a baby that automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. That child is then elligible for all the social welfare programs available in this country. I'm pretty sure the framers of the constitution didn't mean for the 14th amendment to be interperted in this way but unfortunately it is and I bet the effort to change it would get a lot of support from the U.S. voter. Very few countries in the world offer birthright citizinship. Mexico doesn't.

Posted by: RobT1 | August 3, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

It's pretty absurd that a woman can potentially enter this country illegally, 9 months pregant, lay down on the ground just on the U.S. side of the border and have a baby that automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. That child is then elligible for all the social welfare programs available in this country. I'm pretty sure the framers of the constitution didn't mean for the 14th amendment to be interperted in this way but unfortunately it is and I bet the effort to change it would get a lot of support from the U.S. voter. Very few countries in the world offer birthright citizinship. Mexico doesn't.

Posted by: RobT1 | August 3, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Paul 65 - So illegal aliens are beating out Americans to get jobs picking fruit in the fields for 1 dollar a day? Really?

No, this is you playing the victim. “Oh, boo hoo,” you whine, “if not for all those evil brown people all us good white folk would have jobs!”

Yeah, right Paul. I doubt you would last an hour doing the work many of these illegals do all day, every day.

The problem is that the people you voted for drove our economy into the ditch and instead of accepting responsibility you are looking for a scapegoat. This is what rightwingers always do when there is an economic downturn.

Posted by: nisleib | August 3, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Is this any surprise? For decades the Republican/Tea Party has built itself by directly and indirectly appealing to racial/ethnic bigotry.

But to offer some clarity to the discussion, here's the actual language of first paragraph 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Yet despite the direct appeal to bigotry by the Republicans, you've got to wonder if it really does make sense for a child born here to people illegally in the U.S. should automatically become an American citizen? The more I think about it, the more I wonder as to the rationality and appropriateness of this policy.

What's the right thing to do? I don't know. But it might be reasonable to identify the extent of this issue -- how many children are born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants each year? Let's get a factual handle on this. It could be a small number; it could be a large number. But the facts would help identify if the numbers are huge enough to warrant touching the Constitution, which should be amended rarely.

But let's try a rational discussion rather than the usual poisoned and thoughtless rhetoric that permeate these comment boards.

Posted by: dl49 | August 3, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"So talking about the 14th Amendment - repeal or not to repeal - is a way of talking about immigration to the party bases without much chance that anything will actually happen as a result."

***********************

Nonsense!

Birthright citizenship will be eliminated within a decade. We are winning. Open-border, illegal alien-loving, cosmopolitan elites are losing. By the end of the decade, we will have rid ourselves of illegal aliens, shut legal immigration to a trickle, and will wonder how we let this insanity go on for so long.

Posted by: pmendez | August 3, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Paul 65 - So illegal aliens are beating out Americans to get jobs picking fruit in the fields for 1 dollar a day? Really?

No, this is you playing the victim. “Oh, boo hoo,” you whine, “if not for all those evil brown people all us good white folk would have jobs!”

Yeah, right Paul. I doubt you would last an hour doing the work many of these illegals do all day, every day.

The problem is that the people you voted for drove our economy into the ditch and instead of accepting responsibility you are looking for a scapegoat. This is what rightwingers always do when there is an economic downturn.

Posted by: nisleib | August 3, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Leave it to Republicans to start attacking babies. First it was the blacks, then the gays, then came the immigrants, now the party of racists are trying to undo our Constitution so they can criminalize babies! Never again will I vote for this party. NEVER!

Posted by: sammie21 | August 3, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Read the amendment. the second amendment also wasn't for idiots to have 2000 guns and automatics. But that hasn't stopped Republicans for fighting for that. I highly doubt that illegal immigrants children can/have caused more harm to this country than gun toting idiots threatening to take back their country. It's the law. If it was only for slavery, they could have simply put that it only applied to immediate descendants of slaves. Slavery may have been the main reason, but def. not the only.

Posted by: mpshannon1 | August 3, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

rharring: I don't disagree with your characterization of the 14th Amendment's legislative history: it was enacted to protect children of slaves. (Thank goodness, btw.)

The point is that it was NOT enacted in view of people who stole their way into the U.S.

It was enacted in view of people who were savagely stolen from their original homes in Africa and brought to the U.S. in chains against their will.

2 VERY different situations.

Posted by: paul65 | August 3, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

paul65 writes:

"It was not AT ALL the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment that children of illegal immigrants should be granted automatic citizenship."

Oh how wrong you are. The 14th amendment was enacted so that children of slaves were granted citizenship. At the time their parents had been brought here from Africa and were considered Africans. This amendment also addressed the citizenship of the Chinese who were immigrating to the west. At the time the amendment was written there were no laws on the books about illegal immigrants because they didnt exist because at that time all citizens were descendants of immigrants and immigrants where at that time helping to build this country.

So if immigration is such an issue why doesnt the GOP want to repeal Wet Foot Dry Foot? Because they would lose Floridas Cuban vote.

Posted by: rharring | August 3, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the U.K., Japan and South Korea all deny automatic citizenship to American babies born on their soil.

Is that because they are "racist"?

Posted by: paul65 | August 3, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

11 million American unemployed.

11 million illegal workers in the U.S.

Yes, there IS a connection.

Posted by: paul65 | August 3, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Look at the legislative history.

It was not AT ALL the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment that children of illegal immigrants should be granted automatic citizenship.

The amendment was passed for other reasons.

Posted by: paul65 | August 3, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company