TPMDC
No Citizenship For You! TPM Rounds Up The Anti-Immigration GOPers Targeting Birthright Citizenship
Clockwise from top: Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), US Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Share
Send to a friend!
Across the country, an out-there theme has been re-emerging among conservatives seeking to crack down on illegal immigration: End "birthright citizenship," a right based in the 14th Amendment, which leads to automatic citizenship for children born in the United States -- at least, end it as it applies to American-born children whose parents are here illegally.
Birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment was intended, at least in part, to guarantee citizenship for freed slaves and otherwise secure legal equality: "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." Without the concept of birthright citizenship, it's possible for someone to be born without having citizenship in any country at all. Experts have told TPM that any plans to change that right are "clearly unconstitutional."
That's not stopping some right-wingers. Let's take a look at the list of conservatives who insist that birthright citizenship be done away with, either by constitutional amendment or (more often) by looking for a legislative loophole.
1. Lindsey Graham
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has come under fire from the right for having previously worked on immigration reform, is now going so far as to announce that he will propose a constitutional amendment: "But there's another problem we have in this nation that I think is novel and needs to be fixed. If you come across the border illegally and you have a child in America, automatically, that child becomes an American citizen. Under the 14th Amendment, three court cases says there's a constitutional right to that," Graham said in an appearance Wednesday on Greta Van Susteren's show. "But I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here. Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake, that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen." Watch it.
2. J.D. Hayworth
Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), who is challenging Sen. John McCain in the Republican primary, said Thursday that the phenomena of "birth tourism" is a pressing issue that requires ending birthright citizenship: "It's not exclusive to our neighbors to the south, from Mexico. Many families around the world in the jet age are timing the gestation period to come to the United States, to have the blessed event here, so that the new birthright citizen will have access to a phalanx of American benefits, courtesy of you and me and other American taxpayers." Watch it.
3. Louie Gohmert
A month ago, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) warned that birthright citizenship was a national security issue -- involving a diabolical 30-year plot by some very patient terrorists: "I talked to a retired FBI agent who said that one of the things they were looking at were terrorist cells overseas who had figured out how to game our system. And it appeared they would have young women, who became pregnant, would get them into the United States to have a baby. They wouldn't even have to pay anything for the baby. And then they would turn back where they could be raised and coddled as future terrorists. And then one day, twenty, thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life."
4. Duncan Hunter
Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA) has gone even further -- he would deport a natural-born citizen child along with their illegal-immigrant parents. "You can look and say, 'You're a mean guy. That's a mean thing to do. That's not a humanitarian thing to do.' We simply cannot afford what we're doing right now," said Hunter, also adding: "And we're not being mean. We're just saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen." Watch it.
As Jonathan Turley pointed out, regarding Hunter's statement: "Of course the recognition of birth right citizens is different from deporting already recognized citizens. Even if Congress changed the current law, Hunter suggested that he would deport existing citizens. That would raise a host of constitutional problems in the retroactive stripping of citizenship since you cannot simply deport a U.S. citizens because they are too costly."
5. George Will
In a column this past March, George F. Will wrote in favor of ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, and said that the 14th Amendment could not have been intended for such a thing -- under the logic that America at the time of the Amendment's passage was such an open-borders place: "The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration. If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not." (Emphasis in the original.)
6. Nathan Deal
Back in 2009, then-Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) proposed a bill that would seek to legislatively define "jurisdiction" to exclude illegal immigrants, though the drafted bill would not seek to affect any children born before the bill's hypothetical adoption into law (to do otherwise would likely run afoul of the ex post facto prohibition in the Constitution). The bill attracted 92 co-sponsors, made up of 91 Republicans and one Democrat. The almost-all-Republican sponsor list includes Paul Broun (GA), Virginia Foxx (NC), Trent Franks (AZ), Louie Gohmert (TX), Steve King (IA), Randy Neugebauer (TX), John Shadegg (AZ), Joe Wilson (SC), plus conservative Democrat Gene Taylor (MS), and many more. Deal later resigned his seat in order to focus on his campaign for governor of Georgia.
7. Mitt Romney
And as a special bonus, let's go back to 2007, when Mitt Romney considered getting rid of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, or at the very least adopting a policy of eliminating chain migration centered around said children. The funny thing here of course is that Romney's own family has its links to Mexico -- his father George Romney was born there, as part of a Mormon colony founded by polygamists. (George Romney's own parents were monogamists.) Interestingly enough, George Romney's U.S. citizenship was taken for granted when the family moved to the United States when he was a child, and he later was elected governor of Michigan and even ran for president in 1968 -- an office that of course has the much higher bar of "natural born citizen" that the birthers often talk so much about.
Comments (59) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
nodonjuan
July 30, 2010 9:20 AM
I live in So. Cal. I previously worked in a hospital for five years. I was a nutrition person in many areas, maternity was one of them. At least one third of them were Mexican citizens who came to the US not only to have us pay for their child's birth but to have a foot in the door to citizenship in the US. I am about as liberal as they come, I have never voted for a Republican President. After watching this revolving door of women giving birth I feel used. We can't pay for our own citizens health care and then giving these dual citizen children all the lovely thing that we citizens are entitled to pisses me off. Yes, I'm disgusted and I feel used and it's time to end this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
July 30, 2010 10:03 AM in reply to nodonjuan
While I'm torn on the issue, I tend to agree with you. While I'm pretty liberal, there is something about this that has distorted the 14th amendment beyond it's intent.
The notion of automatic citizenship to the child born to folks who are intentionally in the country illegally doesn't make much sense to me. It's not our fault that some children might be born without any national citizenship.
Maybe the solution is that citizenship under those circumstances should not be simply automatic. But perhaps those children should be given future priority or expedited status for immigration and citizenship application after a reasonable waiting period of x number or years. But regardless, still must go through the complete application process.
I don't just don't know. It's a tough one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 30, 2010 11:14 AM in reply to nodonjuan
Mexicans crossing the border just to have their babies? Mexican having babies at the expense of tax payers' money?
Even though, there may be a very few cases where this happens, this barely makes any sense if we take into account how difficult it is to cross the border, how many die along the stretch, needless to say that the women are presumably pregnant.
So, there must be a loophole in this theory that mexicans are crossing the border to milk us all out of our hard earned tax money, right?
Or rather, where is the proof that illegals don't pay taxes? If anything, the majority who want to stay in the country do pay taxes, if they ever dream of becoming legal, as this is one of the requirements to fix their status.
Anchor babys? There are 5 million U.S. children who have lost their parents to deportation, What anchor babies? Where's the stepping stone to citizenship? There is no fast track to citizenship, except for joining the military.
If most of you are as liberal as you have portrayed yourselves to be, you should see the hatred emmanating from the same people who make the same tireless argument without foundations over and over again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hornito
July 30, 2010 7:17 PM in reply to Pablo
You say: "Even though, there may be a very few cases where this happens, this barely makes any sense if we take into account how difficult it is to cross the border, how many die along the stretch, needless to say that the women are presumably pregnant."
I say: Not! The cases are not "few". It is estimated that there are over 20,000,000 (TWENTY MILLION) illegal aliens in this nation now, so it hasn't been that tough to cross.
I've seen them stream across the border by the dozens when I lived in southern Arizona (many with pregnant girlfriends and wives), and I've seen them fill up the welfare and WIC offices, as well as the emergency rooms, in California. Who are you trying to kid?
We need to not only reform the 14th Amendment, we also need to put a stop to the abuse of our laws and hospitality (not to mention our Treasury) by illegal aliens of ALL nationalities. Reform and enforcement needs to be done now, not only for the sake of our nation, but for the sake of our environment as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 31, 2010 2:43 PM in reply to Hornito
The topic is birthright citizenship, not how many illegals are currently living in the U.S. Did they all cross the border just to have their babies? The estimation of undocumented people living in the U.S. is 11 million, if anything, immigration has been dwindling down in the past few years. Deportations are up 10% more than under W.
...fill up the welfare and WIC offices..." Why would you assume they were illegals? No undocumented person can benefit from welfare or any other subsidized government help, that is a fact. Even if they were claiming their american born child, that wouldn't be enough to support themselves too. Or when filing their taxes, they cannot get full credits for their children.
I agree that the american people shouldn't be liable for maintaining those who only want to benefit from our broken system, but at the same time we cannot give in to these draconian 'solutions' which come from demagogues, opportunists who want to feed off the few loud-mouths, who are constantly yelling wolf.
The premise of these laws and the good portion of those who support it is the same, they want to deter the so called invasion. They think they will be subdued to speaking spanish and eating burritos for the rest of their lives, when in fact that is far from reality. These laws play down to our natural tribal instincts against change or the unknown.
Because if the economy is not a cover up of the real reason, then I'd recommend the following link:
[Comprehensive Immigration reform]...would grow the economy by $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/releases/2010/01/immigrationecon.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Blueline99
July 30, 2010 11:35 AM in reply to nodonjuan
It's fascinating to me our national psychosis. Historically there's an anti-immigration movement whenever there's an economic downturn.
90 years ago, there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant, we were a nation that welcomed all people who shared in the American dream. But apparently we are a nation who no longer wishes to share this dream with the world.
Denying children who are born here citizenship seems horrifically evil to me. Are hospital personnel now expected to act as ICE. Do we take babies away from their mothers in order to deport the mother or do we endanger an infants lives and send them back to their country of origin?
We need to stop fearing and blaming immigrants for our nation's problems because although its easy to blame the defenseless, it's not accurate. Our nation is not in the economic mess its in because of immigration.
Our ancestors would all be ashamed of our actions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hornito
July 30, 2010 7:36 PM in reply to Blueline99
I don't think our forebears would be ashamed at all. The realities of 2010 are much, much, different than those of 90 or 150 years ago. Greatly different.
For almost sixty years, I have been an active liberal Democrat, whose dedication to progressive politics has been unwavering, with one exception: immigration. My eyes were opened during the Sierra Club debates over the immigration issue several years ago, and after learning what the immigrant population explosion is really costing our nation, ....and its environment.
If I may, I would like to suggest that all progressives interested in the immigration debate check out PFIR's website at - www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org - to learn the other side of the story.
Having lived in Arizona, Nevada, and California during the immigration explosion, I have witnessed first-hand, and up close, both the good, and the bad of illegal immigration. Unfortunately for all concerned, it's mostly bad. Mexico needs to take care of its own people, and the people need to rise up against the corrupt oligarchs that control the nation and it's vast riches....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sawbuck
July 31, 2010 7:27 PM in reply to Blueline99
"90 years ago, there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant, we were a nation that welcomed all people who shared in the American dream."
really? so when my grandparents came from italy, through ellis island, they were not registered, processed, and examined medically?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ryansh
August 4, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to sawbuck
It goes back quite a bit further than that, all the way to colonial times. George Will repeats the same lie in the article above, saying that there were no illegals but that's just not true. Many people who couldn't come through ports in the US would come in from Canada. You don't think Mexicans were coming into the US from Mexico in the 1800's? Many Irish and Italians who were denied by Ellis Island came illegally into the US from places like Montreal.
Furthermore, I fail to see the dire threat posed by illegal immigrants to this country. The only people put in desperate straits by the situation are the illegals themselves, who have to live on the outskirts of society. Many are virtually homeless, they have much higher rates of communicable diseases (which affect the rest of us as evidenced by e. coli outbreaks in food which is yet another argument for the legitimization of these people), they're prey to unscrupulous employers who treat them as virtual slave labor, as well as to gangs and criminals, they often have no legal recourse when victimized, and they live in perpetual fear, all because they want to make life better in the future for themselves and their families. everyone talks about how we can't "afford" illegal immigrants....how? they're not subject to health care, welfare, or most other benefits enjoyed by citizens, even though most of them pay taxes. how much money is paid into social security each year by illegal immigrants who never see a dime of that money? and if you're complaining about illegals taking jobs from citizens, well, so what? conservatives love the idea of free markets; well, this is NAFTA in action. Europe has experienced positive economic benefits from allowing workers to move within the Schengen borders, so why couldn't the US benefit from Mexicans working in this country? And if they come and work hard and are willing to work jobs to the best of their ability then how is that not positively impacting America? And if that's true, then they deserve to take part in American society...John Locke called it the social contract and it's still valid today.
There are ways to curb illegal immigration and encourage people to come to this country legally. You can offer aid and assistance to Mexico to help end the drug war there that has displaced thousands into this country. You can help Mexico sure up its economy to make staying in country more desirable than illegally coming to America. You can end our own draconian, wasteful, abusive drug practices to help lessen our demand for illicit drugs which fuels the disastrous war in Mexico. There are any numbers of things that you can do to help...targeting these people as criminals and banishing them to the underworld is not the answer.
Besides, the Constitution is pretty explicit on the matter. Every person born in the US is a citizen. Done. End of story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
July 30, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to nodonjuan
I have to agree with Pablo Canseco. This doesn't make sense. The inability to pay could be just a matter of poor people who can't afford insurance. The crossing is hard enough I can't see pregnant women doing that unless something else is driving them to cross when they do. It seems more likely they were in the country before they were pregnant, and happened to give birth here.
Unless you have information on when they came into the country, it sounds like you're jumping to conclusions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sailingaway
July 31, 2010 10:26 AM in reply to ericf
Not true. There is a reason border hospitals are closing their maternity wards. Look into it, the data is blatant if you search for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hornito
July 30, 2010 7:18 PM in reply to nodonjuan
I agree wholeheartedly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
castanea
August 3, 2010 12:19 AM in reply to nodonjuan
If our Border Patrol isn't smart enough or fast enough to catch pregnant women, then we are in more trouble than I care to imagine. There are comparatively few trails that lead from the international border up to and across the mountains east of San Diego. Recent wildfires have removed much of the chaparral in the area. It's not as if the immigrants are shapeshifters who turn themselves into ravens or owls, for chrissakes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ryansh
August 4, 2010 6:11 PM in reply to castanea
man, the x-files was 15 years too early! that would have been a good episode. shape shifting illegal immigrants in san diego. it'd be like that episode where mulder and scully were on an episode of cops in LA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Capecodmercury
July 30, 2010 10:10 AM
"Alice laughed. `There's not use trying,' she said: `one can't believe impossible things.'
`I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Through the Looking Glass, Charles Lutwidge Dawson (Lewis Carroll)
I think I've figured it out. Republicans are living Through the Looking
Glass. No wonder they make no sense.
Oh My God, does that Make Palin the Red Queen?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
paultaiwan2003
July 30, 2010 10:21 AM
I also consider myself liberal and I agree with ending birthright citizenship for anyone born in the US who does not have at least parent who is a legal resident of the US. If both parents are not here legally or the mother here illegally cannot or refuses to divulge the father, then the child should not automatically be a citizen. It's tough but so are immigration problems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
July 30, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to paultaiwan2003
As the 20+ times great-great-grandchild of undocumented immigrants, I support deporting anyone who disagrees with birthright citizenship.
In fact, let's deport anyone whose family does not have at least 50% of ancestors born in the USA - prior to the Civil War.
And I'm being generous here - I'd prefer a requirement that you have ancestors that fought in the War for Independence, but Grandma and all her DAR friends say that's being a little too discriminatory.
All you Johnny-come-latelies can get the fuck out, right now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sagesource
July 31, 2010 1:17 AM in reply to kenga
Ah.
As Lincoln famously said, he would allow two classes of people to remain slaves: those who wanted to be slaves, and those who fought to keep other people slaves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
siuol11
August 1, 2010 5:16 PM in reply to kenga
Amen!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mrwilson1
July 30, 2010 10:30 AM
I see absolutely no reason why foreign nationals or illegal aliens's babys should enjoy citizenship in the US. Nor should we be paying for illegals babys that are born here. The country of origin should be billed for all health care issues
This is a pure givaway that allows these babys familys to collect ss and other social services we all pay into and they dont.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Constitution
July 30, 2010 10:57 AM in reply to Mrwilson1
"I see absolutely no reason why foreign nationals or illegal aliens's babys should enjoy citizenship in the US."
That means anybody that ever immigrated to this country, including your own ancestors cannot be US Citizens, and therefore you are not either.
Surely, you mean something else???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Constitution
July 30, 2010 10:55 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
Some history. This is all old news.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jaango
July 30, 2010 11:44 AM
In reading these comments and which are presumably in support of the espoused 'birthright citizenship', I don't even find it passing strange that the owners of these comments express any concern for our "littlest citizens" when they have been repatriated to the nation of origin of their parents.
Thusly, are these presumptive "citizens" living in hovels, having inadequate access to health care, lacking in three meals per day, and having no capacity to experience any stellar educational opportunity, and of course, never having the ability to understand America's "general welfare" clause in the Constitution? How about having the inordinate opportunity to enlist in our armed forces, and for defending the Constitution and where even the bigots and racists enjoy their rights for "free speech"?
Yup, share with me more of this "invincible ingorance" and I will patiently attempt to 'correct' your intellectual laziness.
Jaango
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
July 30, 2010 1:15 PM in reply to Jaango
Hi Jaango - I am pretty sure that if that child were to arrive in the US, in a fashion that was not demonstrably prohibited, the US Armed Forces would be happy to enlist that child. And maybe even
help grease the wheels for achieving the citizenship they already possess but cannot document or otherwise prove.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toxophilite
July 30, 2010 12:03 PM
nodonjuan says
and Pablo Canseco says
I'm sorry, Pablo, but women coming to S. CA to have their babies isn't rare at all. I think mostly they were already here illegally, but one way or another, this is where the babies are born. It is difficult to cross the border, but it is a daily occurrence. I go camping at a park along the San Diego border in the back country where the landscape is all steep rocky hills and deep gullys. Generally I see at least a dozen ICE units ("la migra") on the road - they aren't out there for fun, and they don't catch anywhere near all the crossers. I sometimes see border crossers trying to find the city (and I don't turn them in). It's dangerous and expensive to cross, but still they come. If I lived in Mexico or Guatamala or wherever, I might come too. Here is much better than there.
We don't have a border solution that makes sense and works at the moment. I am personally not threatened by Latino immigrants, although they are not the only ones arriving in droves. China is contributing a fair number who pays upwards of $20,000 to get here. We are no longer a country that needs a population influx, and we may be the only country that has a birthright of citizenship policy. There is nothing wrong with looking at this question in light of current circumstances and enduring concerns about an underclass. Notice the word LOOK. There is a great deal to look at and think about and conclusions yet to be reached.
Unfortunately, this is likely to turn into an us v. them circus. Many people are truly racist and threatened by brown skin and/or non-Anglo cultural influences. Too bad; we need good minds and good intentions more than we need partisan politics and fear of "other."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
July 30, 2010 12:17 PM in reply to toxophilite
Agreed!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sagesource
July 31, 2010 1:27 AM in reply to toxophilite
We are no longer a country that needs a population influx
And who do you think is going to be paying the taxes for your Social Security when you retire?
In fact, undocumented immigrants already pay something like seven billion dollars a year into the Social Security system with no prospect of ever getting anything back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
margoharris
July 31, 2010 3:17 AM in reply to sagesource
You are right but is more like 9 Billion a year and because of hispanics we aren't facing some of the problems some European countries have due to low birth rates in the population. We would not have enough working people to take care of the old and disabled. And they pay sales taxes too and if they own a house, and they can get a mortgage, they pay realestate taxes too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 30, 2010 12:14 PM
You people do understand that IF these children aren't given citizenship to the united states, they become STATELESS INDIVIDUALS? Everybody has to be a citizen of SOMEWHERE. Ever see the movie "The Terminal?" I'm assuming some of you are thinking these kids should become automatic citizens of The Republic of Mexico/other south american country -- but imagine the unfairness of that idea -- imagine how infringed upon you would feel if the USA was required to give citizenship to kids born in Morocco - just because one of their parents happened to be an American citizen?
As for the free medical care you had to provide to mexicans here in America - that is no different than the care Americans receive when they visit clinics in nearly every European country they visit. And there are a lot more Americans than Mexicans in the world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toxophilite
July 30, 2010 12:45 PM
umm...a kid born to an American parent anywhere in the word is by definition an American citizen. You thought otherwise? Maybe that is the misconception the birthers are laboring under.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 30, 2010 1:00 PM
Well, kind of.....there is still paperwork one would need to fill out, and qualifiers that need to be met.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
However, some countries may not have this same policy. So, in theory, it is possible that since the child is born in the US, citizenship in the parents' country of origin would be negated, as they cannot hold dual citizenship.
Honestly I doubt people are using their own children as a tool to stay in the country....do they want to give their children a better life? Sure....but I don't think that they're scheming to have the kid be a virtual "anchor" for them, and I think that's how a lot of people perceive this.
This is a slippery slope people are suggesting....first, we don't allow first generation children to automatically receive birthright citizenship.....what's next? You have to have a lineage of 3 generations of US citizens before you automatically also become a citizen???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Constitution
July 30, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to Christine
"This is a slippery slope people are suggesting....first, we don't allow first generation children to automatically receive birthright citizenship.....what's next? You have to have a lineage of 3 generations of US citizens before you automatically also become a citizen???"
Slippery Slope indeed, which is exactly what the 14th Amendment writer were trying to avoid by making it a part of the Constitution. What's next could very well be something similar to the Chinese Exclusion Act, or the removal of Citizenship of a certain segment of the Citizenry because of "majority" rule.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toxophilite
July 30, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to Christine
Good link. Birthers would do well to have a look. Sounds a bit tricky if the parent is an unwed father. I wonder if they revised that part in the aftermath of the babies our soldiers left behind in Viet Nam?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
July 30, 2010 1:29 PM
"The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration." - George Will
Isn't that the point? There was no illegal immigration. Perhaps that's because the authors and ratifiers didn't believe in illegal immigration.
There are reasons to manage our borders: No question. But this particular issue, birthright citizenship, is a wedge issue that Republicans have no desire to change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Constitution
July 30, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to whitesauce
I'm glad someone else saw the flaw in the logic here.
The fact that the authors didn't intend for the law to include "illegals" is a large assumption. George assumes the Authors didn't intend to grant citizenship to illegals - you could easily assume that the Authors intended to view Immigration Restrictions as Unconstitutional.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Constitution
July 30, 2010 2:08 PM in reply to Constitution
Cut from Fox News:
"Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce... contends that the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, was intended to protect African Americans.
"Illegal wasn't illegal then," he said. "If you think about it, it's illegal to enter the United States, illegal to remain here, but you get the greatest inducement you could possibly have -- the citizenship of your child. ... It was never intended to do that." "
In this Senators view, it is more reasonable to change to Constitution to meet the needs of the Law, rather than viewing the Law as Unconstitutional.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jaango
July 30, 2010 3:28 PM
Prior to 1937, part and parcel to our immigration policy, Mexican Americans and Native Americans were deported to Mexico on a daily basis and in large numbers.
Thus, the Bicheristas failed on two fronts. In their fear of Brown People, reconstituting historical immigration policy, should have been a no-brainer, and yet, still solved their second problem successfully, and to wit, their attention to voter suppression and disenfranchisement of Hispanics and Native Americans. And obviously, the Bircheristas in Arizona can charitably be described as 'wannabee' rocket scientists.
And today, if you listen to the local tourist board rant, Arizona's 6 million in population will double to 12 million in 20 years. Consequently, the bigots/racists/Birchistas, are taking their gasp for political relevance.
Of course, the Bircheristas have to gain control of the Oval Office in order to define the new version of "enemy combatant" but only if Lindsey Graham is determined to be their "tool"?
Jaango
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
classicman
July 30, 2010 3:39 PM
These arguments are all semantics. If you are here legally and have a child, fine. Of that, there is no dispute. If you are here illegally, then there is a problem that YOU created. You are responsible, not America.
I was discussing this last week with a neighbor of mine. One comment he made was simplistic, but said an awful lot.
Paraphrasing ... No matter how you sugarcoat it, an illegal alien is here illegally.
There is no way to start any process of any kind without first controlling the borders and the influx of those coming here unaccounted for.
Amnesty that doesn't penalize those here illegally is a slap in the face to all those who went through the correct process and did the right thing. All the other arguments cannot be addressed without monitoring and controlling the influx of immigrants first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Constitution
July 30, 2010 3:58 PM in reply to classicman
"An illegal alien is here illegally".
That is oversimplistic, and off-topic. No one is disputing the illegality of certain immigrants here. What we are discussing is whether the children born to these people should be viewed as Criminals or if they should be viewed as US Citizens.
As a matter of "semantics" (or meaning), there is no indication in the 14th Amendment that a certain status is required to be a citizen - it doesn't specify foreign aliens, legal or illegal. The meaning of the 14th is quite clear, IMO.
I don't disagree that control of the border is mandatory and of upmost importance, and needs to happen first.
Good debate! Thanks all!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ryansh
August 4, 2010 6:30 PM in reply to classicman
Then work to streamline the current immigration process to make it easier to immigrate legally. People wouldn't subject themselves to the punishment of being an illegal alien if they thought they had better options. Their "crime" is coming to work in this country to provide a better opportunity for themselves and their families. It's not like they're actual criminals who like what they do or something; no one comes to America illegally because they get a thrill out of breaking the law or because they were abused as a child. They come illegally because they don't see another option. Give them another option and reduce the incentive to come illegally. Yes, they're "illegal", but what does that really harm? You can't find the distinction between an illegal immigrant and a violent criminal?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
donquijoterocket
July 30, 2010 5:44 PM
I've often wondered how one of the wingnuts favorite vocal vixens, Ms. Maglalang views these sentiments being an "anchor baby" herself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 30, 2010 8:07 PM
Then, Seal that border, I'm in favor of it. No more deaths, no more families being separated, no more coyotes trafficking children, women, men and leaving them to their fortune if one of them cannot continue the hike. No more ruthless cartels decapitating people in an on going war amongst themselves to control routes to their main consumer. No more people suffering for the Dream; and perhaps, to our 'fortune', we'll never again know what that is like.
The truth is the U.S. needs immigration. Legal immigration, mind you, but it is simply impossible with the system that is in place currently. We have a population that is growing older, thus tipping the balance off of tax payers and retirees. Bill Clinton has said it. Honesty from someone who's not running for anything, being vocal on one of the most controversial issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Taila McNeal-Krøyer
July 31, 2010 12:28 AM
Maybe we should repeal the 14th Amendment, since it will also strip the citizenship rights of everyone of African descent. It's not like white people will ever accept Africans of be 100% human beings, anyway. And those who say that African Americans should just "go back to Africa" if they don't like American society will have a stronger case after the 14th amendment is repealed. They might as well repeal the 15th amendment too, since everyone seems to ignore that one. And if the "brown" or "yellow" people get caught in the crossfire, so be it. They should have known better when they decided to immigrate to one of the most racist societies on the planet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sagesource
July 31, 2010 1:19 AM in reply to Taila McNeal-Krøyer
There are still people around telling African-Americans to go back to Africa? Irony is dead.
That's an easy one. Invite them to set a good example by going back to Europe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sailingaway
July 31, 2010 10:24 AM
How about the 90 or so of them who cosponsored a bill on this in the House last year?
I mean, this isn't a new issue, nor a tiny group of lawmakers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe
July 31, 2010 11:42 AM
The U.S. is not a sanctuary country for anyone who gets an idea to illegally enter our country.
LibTards want to give away our country...yet pay nothing...and be responsible for no consequences.
We should have NEVER allowed the anchor baby situation. It set up a mentality in the minds of Mexicans that our country was their panacea...their answer...and gave the corrupt Mexican government an out.
Wake UP, mongrels. You will not give away my country and steal from our children...I don't care how much you "LOVE" illegals.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sawbuck
July 31, 2010 7:38 PM in reply to Joe
"LibTards want to give away our country...."
ummm.....the great g.w. bush had 8 years to deal with this problem (as well as deliver your flag burning amendment, gay marraige amendment, get bin laden dead or alive, and get us to mars). and his solution was.............????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
juancapez
August 1, 2010 8:58 PM in reply to Joe
libtards only want to give away your part of the country, contard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pvel
July 31, 2010 1:46 PM
Louie Gohmert looks a lot like an alien. Has anyone checked his papers?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davidfarrar
July 31, 2010 5:24 PM
As I see it, the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was intended, at least in part, to guarantee citizenship for freed slaves and otherwise secure legal equality to..."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."
As I see it, the 14th Amendment dedicates itself to only two types of people, those who were born here from parents who were born here but were considered outside of the jurisdiction of the United States i.e. slaves and American Indians, or those who were not born here but have been naturalized and thus come under the jurisdiction of the United States by a legal process.
Children born here from illegal immigrants are citizens of the country of their parents'.
While I respect the opinions of legal experts, I was under the assumption that this particular issue has not yet been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sawbuck
July 31, 2010 7:24 PM
count me in as a liberal who agrees with conservatives on this one. this provision is being completely abused by mexicans who enter this country illegally. we are being played as suckers, and the u.s. is becoming a dumping ground for the corrupt, failed policies of mexico. i am so fed up with the democrats on this issue. i live in california and am sick of the gauntlets of migrants on corners, at every u-haul and home depot entrance, on every corner of my neighborhood. what is the freakin' democratic plan here????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 1, 2010 4:26 AM
this topic seems awfully ripe with apostate "democrats" and "liberals." "i'm a liberal, but..." unsuprisingly, the people behind "progressives for immigration reform" are pretty much the same people behind SB1070. it's the old minstrel show. hard time selling your shtick in the marketplace of ideas? well, have i got a sockpuppet for you! at what point do actual liberals, democrats and others left-of-center stop falling for this b.s.?
the 14th amendment was above all intended to protect former slaves from the bigotry of powerful whites who sought to lock blacks out of the political process, to deny blacks fundamental rights, and generally to perpetuate the conditions of their economic subordination under slavery. no longer able to force black men and women into submission, whites had no use for them, so they tried the "separate but equal" thing. if you can't beat 'em, get rid of 'em. and they would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for them meddling civil rights activists.
my question is if republicans such as lindsey graham believe birthright citizenship is an error now, do they believe it was ever a good idea?
"I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration." --Thomas Jefferson
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brittanicus
August 1, 2010 6:17 PM
The Arizona law and federal judge Bolton has opened yet another "Pandora's box" and must be applauded, because her Liberal ideology has finally unlocked an avenue to the Supreme Court. Her injunction of SB 1070 has opened the eyes of more than half the population of the United States, which would have remained repressed by most of the Liberal press. National security points of Interest for the American people to address, includes an incompetent failure to secure the border. Not building the real—PAIRED PARALLEL FENCES--transversely over the 1800 miles, separating us from Mexico. Nor is it fully completed, however President Dwight Eisenhower had the monumental courage in 1954 to remove illegal nationals from America's soil. Today’s politicians prefer to hide the illegal alien invasion, under the proverbial rug. One of the most scandalous laws that has been badly misconstrued is the 14th amendment, which needs urgently to be repealed—this is birthright citizenship.
Forget about the facade of hard luck stories of illegal parents, being separated from their birthright citizenship child as they are ought to be deported, but this seldom happens if at all? Legal basis for birthright citizenships stems from the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to provide former slaves citizenship after the Civil War, including the right to due process. This Amendment has progressed to have far-reaching repercussions beyond the intent of the authors. The "Anchor Baby" illuminates the whole unraveling story, which if an illegal alien parent, can reach America before the baby is born, they can collect welfare from any state. In 2006 this was a $6 billion dollar "legal flimflam" unfairly supported by US taxpayers. In other developed nations one parent must be naturalized or citizen born in that country. These families knew exactly what they were exploiting when they came to the U.S. and had a baby born on U.S. soil, as the news of welfare entitlements spreads very quickly from poor country to country.
For illegal immigrants, having a child born in the U.S. becomes this intentional "Racket" to residing here in this land, the ramifications in 2007 was estimated to be 380.000 children annually that taxpayers forfeited in taxes. Birthright citizenship creates a massive fiscal burden on the US taxpayer. At the present time “Anchor babies” are United States citizens from the moment they’re born, and they immediately qualify for public welfare aid. Pro-Sovereignty organizations have called these children of pregnant illegal alien mothers “anchor babies” simply because they become eligible to sponsor for legitimizing most of their relatives (chain migration), including those in poor health. The illegal alien child, when they turn 21 years of age, become the U.S. “anchor” for an extended immigrant family. It has been said, over-and-over-again that birthright citizenship was never projected to be the law of the land, and thus is a flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
To intensify this giant problem, those mothers who illegally enter the U.S. to have their anchor babies have little to no health insurance. While others prenatal mothers are not even poor, but have violated a moral problem by using fraudulent ID and come from every corner of the world. By law they 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). The only difference is that American Mothers stand to be badgered by unrelenting debt collectors afterwards until they pay. And if there are any difficulties with the pregnancy, or if the child is born prematurely and needs to be admitted into a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, the expenditures upswings by thousands more dollars.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) and other statesman has decided to pursue revoke the 14th amendment. A Rasmussen Poll found that 58% of Americans opposed granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, while only 33% supported it. The main problem most Americans cannot conceive the amount of money paid out to subsidize the onslaught of the illegal alien occupancy. Every saddled taxpayers should definitely type into Google or Yahoo "Anchor Babies cost's" and be ready to use your politicians as a verbal punching bag at 202-224-3121
An issue that is not publicized by the left politicians is ant De Facto Amnesty or by executive order of the President. Would instantly turn into a public outrage as illegal aliens would be allowed to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment -- even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents? Senator John Ensign (R-NV) has offered an amendment to gut that provision from any bill. He said, "There 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 Benefits! Let them know what you think about this vote! Go to NumbersUSA for more information on this taxpayer nightmare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
juancapez
August 1, 2010 8:56 PM in reply to Brittanicus
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...how about an original thought, please?
why tire your wittle fingers out re-typing talking points from fox news? just link already. sheesh...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ryansh
August 4, 2010 7:38 PM in reply to Brittanicus
you want to repeal the entire 14th amendment? including due process and equal protection?
by the way, most of what you wrote is semi-coherent gibberish which i imagine you saying in the same voice and manner as the recovering crack addict selling magazines in Office Space.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 2, 2010 10:10 PM
The more the merrier! If the original illegal immigrants all those centuries ago hadn't decided they had the right to legalize both themselves and others, despite having invaded a continent a taken over its land from those who already lived on it, this wouldn't be an issue. And with such a shaky foundation, it still isn't. Lotsa room in the midwest. Lotsa room everywhere. This nation needs as much diversity and as many new people as it can get, because the number of people out there complacently & nastily saying "I got mine, the hell with you" needs to be dispersed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
castanea
August 3, 2010 12:15 AM
What speaks loudest is the fact that Republicans have no plan for the economy, other than more tax cuts, and have done nothing but say a big fat NO to nearly all legislation that has come before them in Congress, and yet they think a pathway to solving America's problems lies in revamping the Constitution?
Goddamn they are a bunch of louts, liars, and charlatans, aren't they? They propose no solutions based in sound economic or scientific theory, but they can again conjure images of Great Brown Hordes sucking up our tax money as ways of motivating voters.
Ending birthright citizenship would do absolutely nothing to address the pressing problems we face at the moment.
The spastic Apocalyptoids are hastening the downfall of America. Won't they be surprised when the Rapture doesn't happen and they find themselves hiding in their basements after they run out of ammo?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ChrisL
August 3, 2010 2:29 PM
Doesn't the "natural born citizen" concept in the original constitution imply "birthright citizenship" for anyone born a free person in the country? The 14th Amendment was needed to redress the non-citizen status of slaves under the original constitution ("all other persons") but those born here free were always citizens, and since slavery has been abolished all who are born here are born free persons and are citizens under the original constitution not just the 14th Amendment -- though the 14th is now equally part of the constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ryansh
August 4, 2010 7:53 PM in reply to ChrisL
pshaw...everyone knows that all amendments after the 10th are less constitutiony than the actual constitution and bill of rights because they weren't graced by the divine presence of the FOUNDING FATHERS. everything in the original constitution is a conservative wishlist (gimme my gun and get the fuck out of my country you atheist!) and everything in all the amendments from 11 on are just in need of republican revamping to make them a conservative wishlist (get out of my country brown people!).
duh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?