8 reasons to leave the 14th amendment alone

[mswas]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/0...ex.html?hpt=T2

There is nothing sadder than watching a political party turn itself inside out and violate its principles.

A coalition of Republican state legislators are doing just that by attempting to change the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment -- or at least how it is interpreted -- to deny citizenship to the U.S. children of illegal immigrants.

At issue, this smidgen of "subversive" language:

"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."

-- 14th Amendment, Section 1

That is pretty cut and dried, unless you have an interest in clouding the issue for the sake of politics.

Which brings us to State Legislators for Legal Immigration. Representing members from 40 states, this outfit is taking aim at what it calls "anchor babies." This week, some of the leaders revealed their strategy at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington.

They propose two things: legislation to create a new definition of state citizenship, apart from U.S. citizenship, that excludes the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and an agreement between the states to issue different birth certificates to babies whose parents cannot prove legal status.

This entire crusade is an immoral, illogical and ill-conceived maneuver that will further divide the American people and ultimately destroy the Republican Party.

I agree. (Only about the anchor babies being US citizens the 14th amendment is the most broken part of the constitution otherwise but that is not what this topic is about)

Now you are able to post in this thread.

[Fish]

The politicians (I was going to say "the Republicans," but let's confine this to the individuals involved) who propose this cannot CANNOT be stupid enough not to realize what would happen to any such a law. It seems to me that this is a way for some Republicans to have their cake, and allow other Republicans to eat it too.

"We'll introduce a bill that's tough on welfare moms and illegal babies!" says Republican #1 from Very White, USA, that has maybe 2 Hispanic voters living in it. "We're all a-skeered of them Mexicans!"

"Let's talk about it in committee," says Republican #2, from Los Gringos, USA, that's 40% Hispanic. "It's a serious and important issue about which I will fail to say anything definite as I pander to two constituencies."

If the bill dies in committee, or if the bill is passed somehow and shot down by the Supremes, both politicians get to look tough, bold, and forward-thinking for the voters. They certainly don't want to let the Democrats bring it up; then you run the risk of making the Republican from Los Gringos (gasp with horror!) agree with Democrats; that's poison.

Bottom line, it'll never fly unless they amend the Constitution.

[mswas]

Absolutely. Though I would heartily support a constitutional convention to review the 14th amendment.

[Turing Complete]

I'm only surprised about the timing. This is usually just the crap they bring out before an election.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Turing Complete

I'm only surprised about the timing. This is usually just the crap they bring out before an election.

I'm not surprised about the timing. This is their mandate time. Kind of like how Obama pushed a bunch of stuff through in his first year in office. They need to show their chops for the 2012 elections.

[Fish]

Naw, Turing. The GOP has got to make the appearance of an effort to keep some of their campaign promises. This is a slam dunk, because it's bold and because it can't actually go through; the other promises — you know, letting the minority make amendments to bills, publishing committee attendance, cutting $100 billion from the budget — they've already backed out of.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Fish

Naw, Turing. The GOP has got to make the appearance of an effort to keep some of their campaign promises. This is a slam dunk, because it's bold and because it can't actually go through; the other promises — you know, letting the minority make amendments to bills, publishing committee attendance, cutting $100 billion from the budget — they've already backed out of.

It's going ot be itneresting to see how the healthcare repeal goes.

[Fish]

I hear the incoming GOP Congressmen have already eagerly signed up for its benefits.

[Lungfish]

Originally Posted by mswas

It's going ot be itneresting to see how the healthcare repeal goes.

A law repealing the law outright wouldn't work as the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will not allow the bill go to the Senate for a vote.

Originally Posted by Fish

I hear the incoming GOP Congressmen have already eagerly signed up for its benefits.

They are signed up for the US Governments Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) not "Obamacare".

Congressmen get the best healthcare benefits in the US, courtesy of taxpayers dollars and yet they don't want their constituents get the same medical provisions. Fuckin' hypocrites.

[Fish]

In the same vein as this thread, Obama is engaging in a similar variety of political posturing in announcing that unemployment is down before the incoming GOP House had done anything to take credit for it.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Fish

In the same vein as this thread, Obama is engaging in a similar variety of political posturing in announcing that unemployment is down before the incoming GOP House had done anything to take credit for it.

Of course.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by mswas

Absolutely. Though I would heartily support a constitutional convention to review the 14th amendment.

IIRC, if you call a constitutional convention, anything goes. It cannot (iirc again) be limited. That's why neither side wants one despite posturing from both sides.

[Fish]

Well, yeah, given that we've already established a precedent in our national law to scrap the lot and start again, a Constitutional Convention should be by definition over and above any and all laws of the land. No power granted to Congress under the Constitution can bind a convention with power over the Constitution.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Fenris

IIRC, if you call a constitutional convention, anything goes. It cannot (iirc again) be limited. That's why neither side wants one despite posturing from both sides.

That's unfortunate, because the 14th is crunked.

[Fenris]

Yeah, but I'm not and I'll bet you're not willing to flush/nerf/castrate the first 10 amendments (and they WOULD be flushed) to fix the 14th.

For what it's worth, there's two workarounds.

1) A new amendment fixing the 14th.

2) A longshot by some right-wingers: they claim (and I don't think this'll hold) that the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part means that if your parents were here illegally, they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US and therefore you don't count as being born here. While this is a fairly clever gambit in the abstract, it doesn't stand a hope in hell of holding up.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Yeah, but I'm not and I'll bet you're not willing to flush/nerf/castrate the first 10 amendments (and they WOULD be flushed) to fix the 14th.

Why do you say that?

For what it's worth, there's two workarounds.

1) A new amendment fixing the 14th.

I'd be satisfied with that.

2) A longshot by some right-wingers: they claim (and I don't think this'll hold) that the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part means that if your parents were here illegally, they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US and therefore you don't count as being born here. While this is a fairly clever gambit in the abstract, it doesn't stand a hope in hell of holding up.

Yeah, Americans should be considered Americans. I've heard some chilling stories about Haitians who moved to America as infants and were deported to Haiti knowing absolutely no one there and not even speaking the language.