Republicans Push To Revise 14th Amendment

[GlennB]

I think that the majority (and not the vocal mionority) of people would be hisitant to make that change.

This may be true but, speaking as an outsider, I can't see one logical reason why it should be so.

The original circumstances have changed. Now the 14th confers citizenship to a few 'accidents' and to quite a few manipulators. Under what circumstances does the 14th make sense?

An amorphous attachment to the tradition of The Constitution doesn't cut the mustard, afaics (not that I'm accusing you of this, A_P)

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't really understand the outrage here. I'm always on the liberal side of these discussions but this just doesn't seem like a big deal. If anyone wants to change any part of the constitution it should be taken very seriously and they should be required to show a serious reason that it needs to be changed. If they can do so, and they follow the process and everyone votes for it, then we change the constitution.

I agree.

But I think the discussion here is about the "serious reason." Come on, republican strategists basically admit it's a wedge issue. That's pretty much by definition not a serious reason.

Personally, I never like the idea of using the constitution to restrict the rights of the people. We tried that once - it failed miserably (unless you count the "rights of slaveowners" I guess, but that was a tradeoff). Let's stick to a constitution that restricts the rights of government to trample on the citizens, and protects the rights of people.

It better be pretty darn obvious if you are going to use the constitution to take something away from people, as opposed to protect them.

 

[Region Rat]

I agree.

But I think the discussion here is about the "serious reason." Come on, republican strategists basically admit it's a wedge issue. That's pretty much by definition not a serious reason.

Personally, I never like the idea of using the constitution to restrict the rights of the people. We tried that once - it failed miserably (unless you count the "rights of slaveowners" I guess, but that was a tradeoff). Let's stick to a constitution that restricts the rights of government to trample on the citizens, and protects the rights of people.

It better be pretty darn obvious if you are going to use the constitution to take something away from people, as opposed to protect them.

I don't see the argument as taking something away from the people, or restricting the rights of people. It is simply not automatically conferring citizenship on children of those not legally in the country. That baby is still a citizen of their own country, same as its parents. We are not restricting the rights of that baby in any way. It has exactly what it would have had had its parents not sneaked across the border.

 

[Region Rat]

I don't really understand the outrage here. I'm always on the liberal side of these discussions but this just doesn't seem like a big deal. If anyone wants to change any part of the constitution it should be taken very seriously and they should be required to show a serious reason that it needs to be changed. If they can do so, and they follow the process and everyone votes for it, then we change the constitution.

Do I think they can make a strong enough argument for this? No. Do I think that they would get the votes? No. Do I think this change would be the end of civilization as we know it? No.

I mean, if it was originally written in a way that allowed certain groups (children of slaves) to become citizens and not others (people who are not legal immigrants) I don't think it would have been seen as unreasonable. We can bicker about whether or not things would have turned out better or worse than they are but that's a seriously complicated issue and any attempt we make of it here is no better than an alternate history paperback you buy in the airport because you once again forgot to bring that thing you've been promising to read.

This^

Its a constitutionally allowed process. Let it happen and see where the support lies. Debate the issue at hand. Demonising the proponents of the change and disparaging their motives may make some fun forum threads, but it doesn't help the debate.

Dicsussing the actual arguments for or against in the context of today's society and needs would be nice.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Pipeline: Names are totally irrelevant to the data, you're right. You didnt' change the goalposts, you gave a red herring.

Bull.

Forget names then, lets see a case number.

 

[Apology]

Why not just enforce the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952? If we try to amend the 14th Amendment, it will have to read "All citizens born on U.S. Soil, or in Guam, or in Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) or in American Samoa and Swains Island, but definitely not anybody else who is there illegally or on vacation or whatnot".

If the 14th amendment wasn't intended to cover undocumented workers, then why did Senator John Conness (R, CA) stand up for undocumented Asian workers during the original 1868 debate and say:

“We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”

They did discuss it, they decided to let the children of undocumented workers have US citizenship, and it should stay that way.

If you want to do something about illegal immigration, then enforce the INS laws that are already on the books. Why doesn't anyone enforce those laws? Big business wants cheap labor. This is just a ploy to stir up anger and get votes. Nobody really wants the cheap labor pool to dry up. All this proposed amendment would do would be to run up a bunch of legal bills and get the racist vote.

 

[SOdhner]

Forget names then, lets see a case number.

I might have missed part of this conversation and so I just want to be clear:

Are you saying the numbers quoted are wrong/fabricated, or that none of the 100K+ cases apply?

 

[Region Rat]

Why not just enforce the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952? If we try to amend the 14th Amendment, it will have to read "All citizens born on U.S. Soil, or in Guam, or in Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) or in American Samoa and Swains Island, but definitely not anybody else who is there illegally or on vacation or whatnot".

If the 14th amendment wasn't intended to cover undocumented workers, then why did Senator John Conness (R, CA) stand up for undocumented Asian workers during the original 1868 debate and say:



They did discuss it, they decided to let the children of undocumented workers have US citizenship, and it should stay that way.

If you want to do something about illegal immigration, then enforce the INS laws that are already on the books. Why doesn't anyone enforce those laws? Big business wants cheap labor. This is just a ploy to stir up anger and get votes. Nobody really wants the cheap labor pool to dry up. All this proposed amendment would do would be to run up a bunch of legal bills and get the racist vote.

Can you point out where the quote says anything about undocumented workers?

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't see the argument as taking something away from the people, or restricting the rights of people.

People are currently assured the right to be citizens if they are born on US soil
Amending the amendment, as proposed, would stop letting people have the right to have citizenship if they are born on US soil

Thus, that right of the people would be taken away, in exchange for an additional right of the government to prevent them from doing it.

 

[GlennB]

People are currently assured the right to be citizens if they are born on US soil
Amending the amendment, as proposed, would stop letting people have the right to have citizenship if they are born on US soil

Thus, that right of the people would be taken away, in exchange for an additional right of the government to prevent them from doing it.

I think the bolded part is the fallacy here.

 

[Apology]

Can you point out where the quote says anything about undocumented workers?

Gladly.

“We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”

The Mongolian parents were the undocumented workers. The provisions in the constitutional amendment (the 14th) provided for their children to be entitled to citizenship, and that was way back in 1868. Born here = citizenship, that was the original intent of the amendment.

Our current laws, if enforced, are adequate to take care of our immigration problem. The trouble is, everybody pays lip service to stopping illegal immigration, but nobody wants to enforce the laws, and this includes democrats, since they could expect to lose a lot of money from corporate lobbyists by taking this tack. Nobody's hands are clean on the subject of immigration. Instead of amending the Constitution and creating a legal nightmare, ALL POLITICIANS should be focusing on enforcing the currently existing laws.

 

[Region Rat]

Gladly.



The Mongolian parents were the undocumented workers. The provisions in the constitutional amendment (the 14th) provided for their children to be entitled to citizenship, and that was way back in 1868. Born here = citizenship, that was the original intent of the amendment.

Are you assuming the Mongolian workers were undocumented, or do you have more of the quote where he states that?

Our current laws, if enforced, are adequate to take care of our immigration problem. The trouble is, everybody pays lip service to stopping illegal immigration, but nobody wants to enforce the laws, and this includes democrats, since they could expect to lose a lot of money from corporate lobbyists by taking this tack. Nobody's hands are clean on the subject of immigration. Instead of amending the Constitution and creating a legal nightmare, ALL POLITICIANS should be focusing on enforcing the currently existing laws.

I happen to agree with you on this (the enforcement part), and I think a lot of the poeple who are for changing the amendment are with you also.
I wonder when that will happen?

 

[carlitos]

According to some Republicans, there's a plot for terrorists to come here, have their "anchor babies", and then train them to also be terrorists. I guess the endgame is that eventually then we'll all be terrorists.

And no, I'm not making this up.

That was the plot of a thriller I read recently.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I might have missed part of this conversation and so I just want to be clear:

Are you saying the numbers quoted are wrong/fabricated, or that none of the 100K+ cases apply?

No, I am willing to concede that some insignificant percentage of those 100k cases apply

My contention is that it is so rare in fact that you will not be able to find a case or name of any single instance

 

[Malerin]

Because the parents want a better life for their child, you would punnish the child?

this country was built by people legally seeking a better life for themselves and thier children.

FTFY

 

[quadraginta]

I might have missed part of this conversation and so I just want to be clear:

Are you saying the numbers quoted are wrong/fabricated, or that none of the 100K+ cases apply?

No, I am willing to concede that some insignificant percentage of those 100k cases apply

My contention is that it is so rare in fact that you will not be able to find a case or name of any single instance

http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-07-...ala-city-deportation-papers-immigration-court

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011649553_anareyes20m.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/nyregion/24deport.html

That's just from the first ten hits in a two word Google search.

They're not so rare, if you're willing to devote entire seconds to looking for them, but that could complicate your preconceptions.

It should be pointed out that in the first case cited above the only thing which was "remarkably stupid" was the incompetence and subsequent intransigence of our bureaucracy.

 

[Apology]

Are you assuming the Mongolian workers were undocumented, or do you have more of the quote where he states that?

Go ahead and do your own research. Try the footnotes in the Wikipedia article on the 14th amendment. It will lead you to a New York Times article that lays it out more clearly. If you're willing to work a little harder, you can find a complete transcript of the debate on the 14th Amendment in the Congressional Globe, May 30th, 1866, when Conness made his statement. That day's Congressional business begins on pg. 2887. If you'd like to learn more about the undocumented status of the Chinese rather than taking Conness' word for it, refer to a U.S. history book and read about the building of the Transcontinental Railroad, which you should have learned about in middle school. The information is still available if you're willing to look for it, but I doubt you'll bother.

I'd do it for you, but it's clear that you're unwilling to believe it. I'm not going to hold your hand through it any more than you were willing to hold my hand earlier in this same thread. This is a typical tactic---question every little detail down to the definition of the words, keep your opponent running in circles until they either give up the debate in disgust, or ask a question that nobody can answer because the details weren't recorded from the dawn of time, and then smugly claim victory. I'm not going to play this game with you. The information is readily available, so look it up yourself.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Looks like there is some dissension within the Republican party over this whole idea of amending the 14th Amendment...

14th Amendment causes GOP split

The push by congressional Republicans to deny automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants has opened up a split in the GOP, with several former Bush administration officials warning that the party could lose its claim to one of its proudest legacies: the 14th Amendment.

For Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) and other conservatives, the solution to what they regard as one of the greatest flaws of U.S. immigration policy is obvious: Amend the amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born on American soil regardless of whether their parents are legal residents.

But in recent days, former aides to both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush, who pushed for comprehensive immigration reform, have condemned the calls by top Republicans to end birthright citizenship.

Cesar Conda, who served as domestic policy adviser to Cheney, has called such proposals “offensive.” Mark McKinnon, who served as media adviser in Bush’s two presidential campaigns, said Republicans risk losing their “rightful claim” to the 14th Amendment if they continue to “demagogue” the issue. ...

All the more reason to think this whole ham-fisted notion is DOA. It's simply playing election-year politics while wasting time that could be used on real immigration reform

 

[pipelineaudio]

http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-07-...ala-city-deportation-papers-immigration-court

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011649553_anareyes20m.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/nyregion/24deport.html

That's just from the first ten hits in a two word Google search.

They're not so rare, if you're willing to devote entire seconds to looking for them, but that could complicate your preconceptions.

It should be pointed out that in the first case cited above the only thing which was "remarkably stupid" was the incompetence and subsequent intransigence of our bureaucracy.

Maybe you should take the time to read the articles you linked

 

[quadraginta]

Maybe you should take the time to read the articles you linked

Where ya gonna try and drag that goalpost to, this time?

Ya oughta be gettin' tuckered out by now.