Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Feingold nixes GOP request for hearings into 14th amendment

Republicans may be calling for hearings into revising the 14th amendment, which guarantees citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, but it looks like they're not going to get 'em.

Russ Feingold, who chairs the Constitution Subcommittee, which would conduct the hearings, has "no plans" to allow them to go forward, his spokesman confirms to me.

And Feingold, in a statement, is reiterating that Federal immigration reform, not amending the Constitution, is the solution:

"We can and should address the problem of illegal immigration head-on without amending the Constitution. The way to do that is to pass bipartisan comprehensive legislation improving border security, protecting American jobs and addressing those currently in the country illegally. It is past time for Congress to resume the bipartisan effort that was started by President Bush and enact meaningful federal immigration reform."

Right now, the list of Republicans supporting hearings into whether to repeal birthright citizenship includes Chuck Grassley, Jon Kyl, and Lindsey Graham, who has hinted at a Constitutional amendment. Mitch McConnell and John McCain also seem supportive of hearings, though their backing is ambiguous.

Does Feingold's opposition mean no hearings on the issue? Unclear. The Constitution Subcommittee appears to be the first stop for efforts to amend the Constitution, But in theory, Senator Patrick Leahy, as chair of the overarching Judiciary Committee, could decide to go forward, despite Feingold's opposition. That seems unlikely, however.

More broadly, other Senate subcommittees, such as the one on immigration, could hold hearings on the issue itself, if not on whether to change the Constitution.

But it's looking less and less likely that any Constitutional tweaks are on the table. Conservative defenders of the Constitution will no doubt be deeply relieved! Oh, wait...

By Greg Sargent  |  August 4, 2010; 3:23 PM ET
Categories:  Immigration , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Are GOPers achieving separation from Bush?
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

They never actually wanted to have hearings, or change the constitution for that matter. No, they wanted to inject more racial tension into the national debate.

Mission accomplished.

Now they get to tell their voters that the Dems wouldn't even hold hearings on the 14th amendment. They'll act like it is a new thing that has never been looked at (it was passed, what, 150 years ago?) and blame the Dems for it. Lee Atwater would be so proud.

It is the Southern Strategy. Just like the New Black Panther non-troversy, the Shirly Sherrod mess, the WTC mosque, the CA mosque, the TN mosque, and who knows how many other silly appeals to racism they plan to unleash in the coming months.

PS - They never thought they would be able to amend the constitution to change the 14th amendment any more than they thought they could amend the constitution to outlaw abortion or gay marriage. To the GOP the constitution is political wedge issue.

Posted by: nisleib | August 4, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

There's a structural point here too. The GOP doesn't want to spend time governing, which means solving complex problems that have positive consequences for the greatest number of citizens. Instead, they want to use government to establish ideological points. One way to do this is to "hold hearings," or, when in the minority, obstruct and foul up the works.

When in control of the executive branch, you make war and run up a deficit.

Really, only a Michael Steele could screw this up and a David Gregory could fail to notice it.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 4, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

what nisleib said.

It's more pandering to the 40% of Republicans that think Obama was born out of the country.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 4, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

so LIndsey Graham is fighting hard to get his anti-immigrant cred back -- see the folks where i live call him "Grahamnesty" because of his work with Ted Kennedy and the Dream Act.

this also didn't gather him much love when he helped a 15 yr stay in the US


"... U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham met with her and, to Negrete's astonishment, promised and followed through with introducing a private bill in Congress that allowed her to remain in the United States - but not indefinitely...."
http://www.aikenstandard.com/Local/0507-griselda-graduates

Posted by: jeeze56 | August 4, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"We can and should address the problem of illegal immigration head-on without amending the Constitution. The way to do that is to pass bipartisan comprehensive legislation improving border security, protecting American jobs and addressing those currently in the country illegally. It is past time for Congress to resume the bipartisan effort that was started by President Bush and enact meaningful federal immigration reform."

Can anybody left or right actually argue with Feingold's statement. The most pathetic thing about all of this unseemly mess is that there is actually room for bipartisan agreement. And until John McCain sold his soul to the devil...hope he has lined up Daniel Webster for the afterlife...he actually COOPERATED on legislation with Ted Kennedy.this is one issue where George Bush had it right only to be back-stabbed by his own party's political grandstanding.

This issue doesn't have to be this divisive...it's complicated but there are plenty of compromises to be had as McCain/Kennedy showed. It's a classic example of where good politics makes for horrible governance...much to the point BG makes frequently about the R's...they are good at campaigning and PR but they suck at actually holding office. The really good ones like Sister Sarah and Richard Nixon do us all a favor and quit!

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 4, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

OT:

Pelosi To Call Back House For Key Vote On Jobs Bill

It's official. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi broke the news on Twitter this afternoon, announcing officially what's been rumored for hours: The House will return from recess briefly next week to pass state aid legislation.

"I will be calling the House back into session early next week to save teachers' jobs and help seniors & children," Pelosi Tweeted.

The legislation, expected to soon pass the Senate, will prevent teacher layoffs across the country, and help states cover their Medicaid costs.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/pelosi-to-call-back-house-for-key-vote-on-jobs-bill.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 4, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

McCain always had his eye on the Presidency the whole time. It was to build up his phony maverick image. All that bi-partisan garbage was to help him get into the WH. Campaign finance was no doubt to help him since he didn't have the big Republican backers as he found out in 2000 when the lined up behind the oil man.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 4, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Great move by Pelosi.

Passed the Senate with the ME Sens voting yes, with all other GOPs voting against.

Where is the push back? The bill raises the deficit over 5 years but lowers it over 10.

The Dems have to get better at winning this message war.

BBQ, please tell them how it's done!

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

The Constitution does not need to be changed. The 14th Amendment simply needs to be interpreted correctly, the way it was originally intended to be interpreted.

And don't worry, we'll get our hearings right after the 112th Congress is sworn in.

And a lot more...

Posted by: pmendez | August 4, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Pull over all those fetuses, and check their papers. If those fetuses do not produce papers, ship them out. Since they can not obtain papers, until after they have been born, this is the perfect way for Arizona to get rid of all of them. Of course it would take some large stones to do that, but Granny Grizzly assures us that Gov. Jan Brewer has massive testicles, so she would not shrink from the task.

It could be her stepping stone to the White House.

I can see it now:

Jan Brewer For President;

She Was The Only One With Big Enough Testicles To Get Rid Of All Undocumented Fetuses.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 4, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

This is just another example of the teatards forcing what used to be mainstream Republicans to court the right wing fringe.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 4, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

John Stewart's take on this was too funny.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-3-2010/born-in-the-u-s-a-

Posted by: nisleib | August 4, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Billions of more dollars could be collected and directed out the country crippling American workers Social Security and pensions. Any type of EXONERATION would bring incredulous financial repercussions, in a country that has millions of Americans jobless. Senator John Ensign (R-NV) has offered an amendment to gut that provision from any bill. He said, "This was a felony they were committing, and now they can't be prosecuted. That sounds like amnesty to me. U. S. Senators Who Voted For Illegal Aliens to Collect Social Security. This in no way covers the painful ramifications of rewarding criminals with any kind of Amnesty. Tea party organizations, Independents and other political party members cannot vote the incumbents out of office on their own? But if we show we mean business and stand behind Candidate Jan Angle in Nevada.

We must purge the pro-amnesty majority leader Sen. Harry Reid and also show the door to Nancy Pelosi and others. We stand a chance to bring this country back from the brink? When a growing number of states have impending laws, in similarity to Arizona's-- you now something is very wrong with the path Liberal-Democrats are preceding along? Remember that if Amnesty were to pass, millions more would try to arrive before the bill is signed and then the vicious cycle would never end. NumbersUSA for more details. Read about the massive corruption in Washington and states at Judicial Watch. INSTEAD OF A CIVIL INFRACTION, WE SHOULD MAKE ILLEGAL ENTRY A FELONY LIKE MEXICO AND MANY OTHER COUNTRIES . Get on the phone now and demand from Washington E-Verify, MANDATED at 202-224-3121.

No copyright for my comments and articles. Copy & paste and distribute freely.

Posted by: infinity555 | August 4, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse


Billions of dollars be saved in welfare payments through closing the loophole in chain migration fraud, plus stop tolerating the illegal parents of a Anchor baby to stay. To irritate the American taxpayer even further there is a continuous racket of “drop and leave.” Tourist agencies around the world, advertise coming to America for—FREE--natal care (average cost for delivering a child is $6 to 8.000 dollars and that child attaining a recorded birth certificate.) Is it no wonder that Arizona has enacted a state law, as being the first target of illegal immigrants who trespass past the national wall? In addition there are very little limitations of passengers entering as tourist, who cannot be recognized as pregnant. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) enacted in 1985, makes it impossible to restrict anybody from medical treatment of any kind, including child birth. Each year thousands of expectant women flood the border region and its consequences on smaller hospitals is that they are forced to close.

These females have no insurance and the facility had to absorb the fees for delivery. The US government is purportedly required to reimburse the hospitals, but in the end the states requisite to pay, which again is passed onto the taxpayers. The 14th amendment may not be amended or voided, but parents of these babies have no right to be bankrolled by the residents of different states and should be deported. We should comprehend that American taxpayers must forfeit a good part of their wages, to the obnoxious tune of $113 billion dollars annually as reported by FAIR for illegal alien welfare. Even these issues would be a drop in the bucket, if the Democrats covertly pass an AMNESTY. Reassured those illegal aliens who worked in America for many years, without being caught using stolen or bogus ID can on being legalized gain access to any taxes they have paid.

Posted by: infinity555 | August 4, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

With this sovereign nation being overcome by the illegal alien habitation, we must convey some saneness to the public servants who run the spectacle in Washington. Americans are finally displaying their unbearable frustration and are now opening up with a volley of anger who contradicts citizens and permanent resident’s accumulation, which is resonating from illegal immigration issue. The dominant source is the construct of the border barrier, that has endured unfinished and not the unique two matching fences as authored by Rep. Duncan Hunter in 2006. Everything derived from that one obstacle which comprises of millions of people who came here, by bypassing the US border Patrol. Nobody can put the entire liability on the Obama administration. But now they have the majority in Washington, obligated in stopping the flow of impoverished people that taxpayers are commanded to support.

Second issue that also has its focal derivation on the border is the failure to terminate continuous tide of “Anchor Babies” as a cluttered requirement of the 14th amendment. Babies of illegal parents get instant citizenship, if the mother can avoid the Border patrol. Her new infant citizen can immediately get welfare benefits that in 2004 cost US taxpayers $6 billion dollars from your wages. But there is a yawning loop-hole--which is the parents remain unqualified for entry to this country and can be ousted across the porous border. Although the child has privileges, it is implausible that the parents will leave the child with a legal relative or guardian. As ugly as this appears to proceed with, it encompasses billions of dollars in saving for taxpayers. Until that child reaches 21, under the law no family member can be sponsored. Chain migration through sponsorship is in itself as another “RACKET” where billions of welfare dollars are at stake. In hundreds of cases the sponsorship finally fades away, as the Immigration and Customs Service doesn’t follow up and so those relatives; parents, immediate family become public welfare charges.

Posted by: infinity555 | August 4, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

The horrible cyborg Jan Angle!

Oh Noes! Part opportunist governor and part whackjob idiot Senate candidate!

Head for the hills!

Please feel free to distribute this to everyone you know. I can't believe how important I'm sounding here.

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

And Here Were We, Just Starting To Believe That Republicans Are PRO-BIRTH.

Boy; They Almost Had Us Fooled, until they started to scapegoat the unborn.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 4, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

FYI - I do copyright my comments and nobody better copy and paste them like a brain dead rightwinger who wants to make a point but lacks the intellect to make it themselves.

Posted by: nisleib | August 4, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

infinity- "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

Actually, illegal immigration has been steadily on the *decline* since 2000, especially since our economy tanked. But, whatev...

Hey, maybe THATS why the GOP drove it in the crapper-to keep illegals out. Crafty buggars...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | August 4, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

I have copyrighted "copyright" and all variations of it, so every one must cease and desist using that term now.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 4, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Tad Allen will soon be tasked with pumping in mud, to permanently plug WickiLeaks!

Posted by: Liam-still | August 4, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

It's funny how things change over time.
A one point Republicans were proud they passed the 14th Amendment. But it's apparently more advantageous to now oppose it to score points with the far Right conservatives.

Check out Accomplisment No. 6 at http://www.gop.com/index.php/learn/accomplishment/

It states

Republicans Passed the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment guarantees due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens. It enshrines in the Constitution provisions of the GOP’s 1866 Civil Rights Act. The original purpose of the 14th Amendment was to defend African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors in the post-Civil War South.

The principal author of the 14th Amendment was U.S. Rep. John Bingham (R-OH). In Congress, all votes in favor of the 14th Amendment were from Republicans, and all votes against it were from Democrats.

In 1868, the Republican Governor of New Jersey vetoed an attempt by the Democrat-controlled legislature to rescind the state's ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Read more: http://www.gop.com/index.php/learn/accomplishment/#ixzz0vfi82lQR

Posted by: islandmanskn | August 4, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Chuck how dare you bring FACTS into the discussion and ruin infinity's fanciful rants.

We could also ask infinity...are you aware that Ariz Senator John Kyl is lying about how bad crime is growing in Arizona because of the immigrants. But perhaps since you support the right infinity you are not bothered by such things as facts.

VIOLENT CRIME...according to Arizona's crime records has DROPPED NOT RISEN for the past four consecutive years.

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY...have also DROPPED NOT RISEN the past four years.

I'm curious infinity do you care about the truth. Does it bother you for example when Fox puts video of one event and claims it's another...as they did with Glen Beck's 9/12 gathering...Sarah Palin's booksigning appearances...oops that's right...nobody who watches Fox cares about such little details as Greta Van Susteren's staff mistakenly putting Shirley Sherrod's pic while Greta was talking about Rep Waters. Oopsie mistakes happen...especially at Faux!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 4, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

CA court case verdict is in: judge rules that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Wow.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 4, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

ruk-

Yeah, unfortunately, he/sh/it prolly didn't stick around. Looked like a classic hit-and-run.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | August 4, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

What a pathetic excuse for a Senator Feingold is. Mr. public financing hero who said nothing when Obama boy raised $600M through private financing!

If Wisconsin folks do not remove him, you deserve what you get.

He is in other's crosshairs though!

Posted by: numbersch13 | August 4, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

i wonder if "numbersch13" realizes how suspect his choice of words are...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | August 4, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

False premise, Greg.

The 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to children of illegal aliens born here.

But you know this already. Right?

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 4, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Prop 8 struck down!

Posted by: sbj3 | August 4, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

quarterback1 - "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

You should have stayed in school.

Posted by: nisleib | August 4, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Someone please watch Fox tonight and let us know whether they hate the gays or the brown people more.

With the Prop 8 ruling it's going to be a close race.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 4, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Odds are that the prop 8 ruling will be overturned, by those Five Right Wing Judicial Activist, Catholic Men on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 4, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/prop_8_ruled_unconstitutional.php

Of course a law has to have a 'rational basis'... but the GOP doesn't understand what that means.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 4, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI - Not it!

Why don't you watch it? And how could you tell, they hate so much it is hard to classify one hatred as being more or less than the other.

Posted by: nisleib | August 4, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Between birthright citizenship and the equal protection clause justification for the Prop 8 decision - the 14th amendment just became enemy #1 for the right. Tee-hee.....

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 4, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Snips from the Prop 8 ruling:

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.

California "has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate."

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 4, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Infinity555 is apparently spamming his nonsense out. Check out Kevin Drum's blog about this. Look at the comment at 12:54 from Casca...

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/08/14th-amendment-crackpottery#comments

Posted by: nisleib | August 4, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Greg reports that Republicans had request hearing to look into revising the 14th amendment, and Toon Town Lawyer drops in to tell Greg that the 14th Amendment does not bestow citizenship on children born in the USA.

Shouldn't Toon Town Lawyer be telling that to all those Republican Senators, of his own party, since they are the ones who are talking about changing the constitution.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 4, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

nisleib, my gag reflex is irrepressible.

Prediction:

Fox: Marriage Under Assault!

MSNBC: CA Not Allowed to Discriminate.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 4, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Prop 8 overturned! Woo-hoo!!!!

Posted by: Michigoose | August 4, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Overturning Prop 8 = now how do we get Obama "straight" on gay marriage?

"Court finds "DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIA’S OBLIGATION TO
ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY."

Posted by: sbj3 | August 4, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

* Glen Beck Adds WHITE NATIONALIST Tweet to Favorites *

Fox News host Glenn Beck added a tweet by @MalevoFreedom to his list of favorites on Twitter. Others included one by @owillis (which was retweeted by @jaketapper) wishing his mother a happy father’s day, and another by @agentrevolt about how President Obama is paying more attention to baseball than “ACORN atrocities.” The @MalevoFreedom one was troubling, however, because the user writes in its bio, “White Nationalist News And Forum.” The tweet that Beck added as a favorite promoted white pride:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/GlennsFav.gif

Stop Beck writes, “Now, to be clear, in order for the tweet to appear in Glenn Beck’s favorites either Glenn Beck or the operator of Glenn’s twitter account would have needed to mark the tweet as a ‘favorite.’” Additionally, sometime since his attachment to @MalevoFreedom was made public, Beck has deleted all of his favorite tweets.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/04/beck-white-power/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 4, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

SBJ.

You worry about those five right wing activists on the Supreme Court. They are the ones who will most likely over turn the prop 8 ruling.

I know you love to scapegoat President Obama, and you have always hated him; but for cripes sake get a grip.


Posted by: Liam-still | August 4, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

@Liam: "You worry about those five right wing activists on the Supreme Court. They are the ones who will most likely over turn the prop 8 ruling."

Not worried in the least. Kennedy has already ruled laws unconstitutional in favor of gays based on rational-basis review.

Posted by: sbj3 | August 4, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Liam and SBJ - Are their 5 right wing activists on the SCOTUS?

Definetly four, but Kennedy is a swing vote on social issues and a hard right vote on corporate issues...

Or am I totally off base? This is not my area of expertise.

Posted by: nisleib | August 4, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

SBJ,

So what do expect President Obama to do about it, once the Supreme Court has ruled on it,one way or the other.

You really are pathetic. You said the only reason you even bothered to vote, was to keep Obama from becoming President, and now you keep whining about how he should be doing more to save you from those Republicans you voted for, in order to prevent them from continuing to treat you like a sub human.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 4, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib: "Are their 5 right wing activists on the SCOTUS?"

No!

Posted by: sbj3 | August 4, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Wow, it sure is nice to win that one. I'm not worried about appeals or the SC either sbj. I think marriage equality is inching ever closer to reality. From what I've heard the judge wrote a very sound ruling and it will be difficult to overturn.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 4, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, Jeff Sessions has officially removed the fillibuster from the table on the Kagan confirmation. Not that he needed to, since there are too many R's prepared to vote for her. But, it nice that someone forced him to say the words, out loud and in front of a camera.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/112629-sessions-no-kagan-filibuster-

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 4, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Ims, Vaughn wrote an entire section of his decision based on the 14th Amendment.

:o)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 4, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Dream on.

This Right Wing Activist Court can overturn anything. They recently overturned over a hundred years of precedent in one of their rulings.

In Recent times, Kennedy has been co-opted by the other four.

The ruling that he wrote on. to allow the super rich to dominate political speech, is just another way of restoring The Poll Tax.

The Rich can afford all the speech in the world, while the poor get muzzled. Kennedy just championed that position, so I doubt if he will be a Profile In Courage, and stand up to the other Four Right Wingers, on an major rulings, for the rest of his time on the bench.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 4, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/happy_hour_roundup_64.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 4, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you should worry about your own, sbj:

Reaction from Newt Gingrich: "Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society."

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 4, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm a registered Democrat with liberal positions on most issues, but I completely disagree with my party on this one.

The Republicans are right. My child doesn't become a citizen of Norway, Sweden, the U.K., France, Germany, Japany or any other major country just by being born there.

And I doubt the framers of the 14th Amendment had any intention of permitting the children of 11 million illegal imigrants become American citizens.

Posted by: paul65 | August 4, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Liam - I'm no fan of today's SCOTUS, and I think Kennedy is just as bought and paid for as the other 4 righwingers on the court, but on social issues (issues that don't involve corporations) he IS (kind of) a swing vote.

But I'm far from confident his vote will swing the way I'd like it to.

Posted by: nisleib | August 4, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse


11 million American unemployed.

11 million illegal workers in the U.S.

.

Posted by: paul65 | August 4, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Paul65: Didn't you spam out that exact comment yesterday?

I highly doubt you are a democrat with liberal views. I'd bet you are a troll, or a spam bot.

Posted by: nisleib | August 4, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Paul, there isn't a shred of reasoning or argument in your post.

What makes some people "illegal" in one era did not make them so in another. It's the system that's the problem, not the babies.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 4, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Is it also "teatarded" to think It's OK for every European country, Australia and New Zealand to deny automatic citizenship to every American baby born on their soil?

Because they do.

Posted by: paul65 | August 4, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

John McCain said that we had to have cheap illegal farm workers, because Americans would not do that work for $50.00 per hour.

Where do those claims of 11 or 12 million illegals come from?

Who did the counting. It would seem to me to be almost impossible to count people who would be doing their best to avoid being noticed.

It sounds more like some big scary number that some political operatives pulled out of their arses.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 4, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Which one of Newt's three "traditional marriages" was broken up by Gay Couples?

Posted by: Liam-still | August 4, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

nisleib: Yeah, I'm a lib dem. Check out my comments on any other topic.

But te Republicans are right about this one.

Posted by: paul65 | August 4, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Shorter GOP: Don't turn us into France, unless it's to deny citizenship rights.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 4, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

The 14th Amendment was enacted (and rightfully so) to protect children of people who were forcibly brought to the U.S. as slaves, not the children of people who come to the country illegally (let alone tourists).

FACT.

Posted by: paul65 | August 4, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

The people who opposed the 14th Amendment then oppose it now, and for the same reasons.

FACT.

moron

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 4, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

So what. We are governed by the Constitution of The USA, not by the laws of some European Nations?

Should we ask them to go through our constitution; and change it for us?

For cripes sake; we are tossing out Citizenship papers left and right, as mercenary rewards to those who join the military, and go fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If citizenship is such a sacred thing, then why are we using it as bait to lure foreign born enlistees.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 4, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

A partial list of countries that deny automatic citizenship to children of Americans born on their soil:

Australia
Belgium
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

Are all of these countries "racist"?

Are all of these countries "nativist"?

Or could there be any other reason for their policy?

Posted by: paul65 | August 4, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

You got me, Paul. If Malta does it then I'm on your side.

You don't know what an argument is, do you?

Maybe take a class or something. They have lots of great courses in the evening these days.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 4, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI: Do you think the people of England are "morons" for not allowing you to sneak into their country and have kids who automatically become British citizens?

Posted by: paul65 | August 4, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Most black and Asian Americans agree that letting 11 million illegal immigrants have anchor babies is wrong. (Gallop)

Are most black and Asian Americans racist?

Posted by: paul65 | August 4, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Yes Paul, I do. Have you been there? They have had a terrible problem with immigration because they have failed to deal with assimilation issues. We are ahead of them and always have been in these matters, and to regress will make this country into a fearful, more homogeneous place. Like England.

And BTW, the whole substance of your argument, which isn't one, is in the verb "sneak."

Just so you know, gross generalizations do not make for solid arguments. If I say that "all old white men are racists," that doesn't make it so.

I know many, many more undocumented people than you do, with many different stories, and it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Please go back to being a nice liberal about gun control or whatever.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 4, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Paul, this is not an issue of the Constitution, it's an immigration issue and if the Republicans would get serious about issues instead of demagoguery maybe we could get somewhere as a country. You can't just pick and choose who gets to stay and who doesn't, we're a nation of laws and it's past time our immigration laws incorporate the people already here, the people who want to come to stay, and the people who just want to come and work then return home. Oh yeah, and their rights as employees.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 4, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI: Appreciate your thoughtful response.

Posted by: paul65 | August 4, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Whatever it takes to end this birthright citizenship MUST be done! Maybe taking this to the Supreme court would clarify this "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

If illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, how the hell can their children be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Make so sense to me.

Posted by: scuncic | August 4, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Um, because that's exactly what citizenship means? You are a citizen means you are SUBJECT to privileges and laws.

Dumbass.

Seriously, this is not a game. It's like being against gay marriage. HOW does it affect you?

It doesn't. Now you eat at the kids table.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 5, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

The fact is that most citizens do object to the illegal alien invasion, and a misinterprtation of the Constitution that permits them to be rewarded by their bad behavior. No other nation foolishly encourages illegal immigration by permitting the children of people not recognized as legal immigrants to become citizens. What is Feingold afraid of? He's afraid of losing the Latino vote because the ethnocentric groups like La Raza, who claim to be leading their constituency by the nose, would drop their support. Democrats want to replace American citizens who question their bad policies with a welfare constituency who they can buy off with tax revenues of the middile class and wealthy. It's been their tactic for years now.

Posted by: HoraceR | August 5, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

"The Rich can afford all the speech in the world, while the poor get muzzled."

Liam, the day that our government gets to say who has free speech, and who does not is the day that this country is destroyed. I challenge you to cite where the poor are being muzzled. And the owners of corporations are comprised of pensioners and workers who own shares. Coroporations still do not vote as persons, and the vote is still the ultimate control on how government behaves. People like you just like to scapegoat corporations for the complacency of the voters. The reason why we have poor governance is not that corporations have too much say, but the poor representation of voters at the polls.

Posted by: HoraceR | August 5, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Those that would object to ending birthright issure probably wouldn't object to every foreign born baby outside being giving the right of U.S. citizenship, becuse isn't it just the matter of time and place of their birth? Why should that matter to them? It's not fair that every baby in the world isn't given a U.S. birthright, is it?

Posted by: HoraceR | August 5, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Why must we have a logical solution to the 14th Amendment of 1868? we need serious reconsideration for today's problems. If an immigrant is in this country ILLEGALLY, they are breaking the law, hence their child should NOT become an automatic citizen. Only immigrants who are in this country LEGALLY should be granted automatic citizenship of their children born in this country. As with anything in our fast changing world, we need to change with it. Our forefathers could never have foreseen the problem of illegal immigration and the crimes of STOLEN IDENTITY,FORGED, FICTITIOUS SSN,DRUG CARTELS,TERRORISTS. Plus, the millions of dollars in costs for social programs and the extra educational costs to teach the children of illegals in their language. Additional costs of making Spanish our second language because the immigrants from south of our border will not simulate as other immigrants from around the world are happy to do when they come to our great country. What about our health programs, welfare, and prison overpopulation and the hundreds of thousand people that cross our borders illegally every year. Heck 20 million extra unknown persons in the country would have been unfathomable back in 1868. If our forefathers had been able to see into the future, do you think they would have written the 14th Amendment as was written? HECK NO! Healthcare in 1868 was basic, Today we have high priced healthcare they could not have even imagined! Our hospitals have the burden of taking illegal woman who come across our border just to have their babies which in turn allows the child our social benefits and then they have more children so their food stamps, medicaid, SSI, welfare, also housing & utility grants from CEDA increase with family size then of course we cannot deport these criminals because their children are citizens! And those children sponsor their parents when they become of age! WHO GETS SCREWED? MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS! We struggle paying high health insurance costs. Hospitals and medical professionals need to recoup their losses. Prisons? Heck the legislature act of 1868 (HMMM same year as 14th amendment) passed the Penitentiary Act in FL.that opened with 14 guards and 9 inmates. within 6 months the population EXPLODED to 42 inmates. In 1868 Alcatraz was a military prison. By 1898 The Spanish American War increased it's prison population from 26 to over 450 prisoners. That is a far cry from today's numbers and costs. SOCIAL SECURITY nos. and RECORDS WERE CREATED IN 1937. They were not to be used for credit & identification purposes. If our forefathers could see the problems we are facing today, the huge cost Americans are burdened with they would say that the amendment needs to be changed to PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS! THEY WOULD BE APPALLED BY THE LACK OF COMMON SENSE IN TODAY'S COURTS AND POLITICIANS WHO CARE MORE ABOUT THEIR JOBS THAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. SHAME ON THEM. DECEIT is WRONG! We need change.

Posted by: djschisley | August 6, 2010 4:52 AM | 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