Lindsey Graham Leaps into Wingnut Land, Wants to Repeal Part of the 14th Amendment
Looks like Lindsey Graham is worried about appeasing the nativists in his wingnut base. On Greta Van Susteren's show the other night he announced he might introduce a bill that would change the law granting citizenship to children of immigrants born in the United States. As Steve Benen noted:
...as far as much of the media is concerned, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is a reasonable, pragmatic Republican, with whom Democrats should have no trouble finding common ground.
He's proving once again here he doesn't deserve that label.
Lawmakers Consider Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants:
Lawmakers since last year have been kicking around a proposal to bar U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens. Such a move, which has been ridiculed by legal scholars, would be a drastic reinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
But those supporting the move say it removes a key incentive luring illegal immigrants over the border. And with Arizona lawmakers now prohibited from requiring police to check immigration status, the option might be back on the table.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News after the Arizona ruling came down that "birthright citizenship" needs to be changed.
"I'm a practical guy, but when you go forward I don't want 20 million more (illegal immigrants) 20 years from now," he said. "Let's have a system that doesn't reward people for cheating."
Though other lawmakers have called for a change in U.S. or state law, Graham said he might introduce a constitutional amendment.
"We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen," he said Wednesday. "They come here to drop a child -- it's called 'drop and leave.' ... That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."
As Steve also noted, Jamelle Bouie at the American Prospect did a very good job of pointing out just how extreme Graham's position is -- What Ever Happened to the Maverick of South Carolina?:
Of course, we should be careful not to confuse independence with moderation. Yes, Graham has been willing to work with Democrats, but he's consistently brought a conservative approach to the issues. And when working on his own, he doesn't hesitate to champion conservative causes. For instance, Graham isn't too fond of children born to illegal immigrants in the United States -- "anchor babies," as the right-wing describes them. Indeed, Graham is so incensed by this that he wants to amend the Constitution to end it. [...]
It's genuinely difficult to overstate the radicalism necessary to seek a transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed to ensure that slavery could never again happen in the United States and is now integral to keeping the United States free of a permanent underclass of immigrant workers. At its core, birthright citizenship gives immigrants a reason to stay and provide lasting contributions to the United States.
In assaulting birthright citizenship, Graham is attacking an incredibly important part of the American social contract. If the media has any sense, this should kill the narrative that Lindsey Graham is a maverick or a reasonable Republican.
Even the Fox article pointed out that this is not likely to happen and how crass this political game being played by the right wing is.
The amendment process is drawn out, and success is almost always unlikely -- it would take a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress as well as ratification by three-fourths of the states. That's 38 states.
Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer and former federal prosecutor, called the push "pie in the sky" no matter how lawmakers go about it. He said any law altering the 14th amendment would never survive a court challenge and questioned the intent.
"It's spiteful," he said. "These are U.S. citizens. ... They're babies that by the grace of God were born in one country instead of another."
He said immigrants are not by and large crossing illegally into the United States just to have children. For starters, he said the parents would have to wait 21 years before their children could sponsor them for legal residency.
Wildes, former mayor of Englewood, N.J., said changing the citizenship ground rules would fundamentally alter the foundation of the United States. It is a rarity for a country to offer citizenship to anyone just because they're born on that country's soil -- but that principle has shaped the U.S. population.
UPDATE: Title slightly amended to reflect that he does not want to repeal the entire 14th Amendment, just part of it.
Cmon! Isn't it time to admit to the confederacy that we were wrong and that they can secede any time they want?
The nukes and troops and materiel are removed first...
And I don't think that will happen voluntarily
believes the democrats should have no problem with this bill ,
Why did the Republicans have problems getting aboard these bills or filibustering against them for
Unemployment ,
Stopping the filibuster against the DISCLOSE Act ,
Imposing restrictions on political activities by interest groups ,
Republicans Filibuster Tax-Cutting Jobs Bill
None
These fuckers probably want to repeal the 7th, 8th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments.
along with the mounting debt, they'll have to repeal the 3rd as well.
me-oww!
...these poor dumb bastards don't even give a shit about possible repercussions, like losing the Latino vote in close elections.
BTW, I was wrong about Hans Blix yesterday.
The reason they have become so extreme right-wing ,,, it locks votes in for their Red states. (So these votes are automatically their)
They also have flooded the democrat party with corporate & pro war candidates. So they have a republican democrats running against Republican which is a win-win for them.
So with their lock in Red states and the republicans elected on the democrat ticket it gives them the majority in the senate and house and they get to blame the democrats for anything which goes wrong..
Does anyone really believe the blues dogs are real democrats or that a lot of the so called conservative-centrists-democrats are real democrats.
When it comes to a Major piece of legislation for corporations , just enough so-called democrats jump aboard to vote with republicans to water it down to 0 effectiveness before passing it ,, or stopping it in it's track.
None
between two american citizens having a baby in Arizona and two Mexican citizens having a baby in arizona. Anchor babies are only as good as the greencards and citizenships (through the proper channels) they enable. Just because two mexicans have a child doesn't automatically shower them with riches. They are still as illegal as they day they arrived no matter how many tax-payers they pop out.
Why change the constitution when you can simply make anchor babies obsolete through hard immigration quotas?
If they are so concerned about population growth they have to tell US citizens to stop fucking as well.
Americans realize that we have less freedom , rights and say in our government now than before the revolutionary war.
This global empire with their elected government employees own us lock , stock and barrow.
The Supreme Court is now a Corporate Board for passing their wishes and demands.
None
10, 100, 1000? No amendment to give 160 million women equal rights but an amendment to deny a few children citizenship. What possible danger do these few children pose that they would cause us to change something so fundamental about America.
None to the country, but they could be a threat to the Republican Party -- I'm assuming there are more than a "few" -- because they are likely to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. The GOP, or VSP (Voter Suppression Party), works overtime to try to keep certain people from voting. It's one of the fundamental tenets of their party.
That would be an alteration of court precedence
But not necessarily of the amendment
Because one has to remember that although Amerindians lived here
They weren't considered Americans or even humans until the Standing Bear Case of 1879, and didn't get the vote until 1924. Some states didn't grant the franchise until the 1950's and 1960's, with Utah being the last.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0600/frameset_...
http://nativeamericanfirstnationshistory.suit...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I don't know if you can consider the situation of Amerindians as an on-point precedent. By treaty, Native American tribes were also recognized as separate nations with a high degree of sovereignty (OK, sovereignty in theory rather than practice, but nonetheless).
just a diversion away from teh gay conversation we need to have with Lindsay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Even tho his mom over stayed her visa,( From Australia mate) making her an illegal alien, and making BilBray an anchor baby himself. I swear, you just can't make this stuff up. I'd say it writes itself. But I can't. Ignoramus's are writing it. Hate filled, bigoted ignoramus's .
With a massive dose of hypocrisy.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
If you want to deter illegal immigrants, you must impose strict penalties upon those who hire them. So long as businesses are able to hire illegal immigrants "under the table" and exploit them as sources of (extremely) cheap labor, folks will continue to pour across the border in droves. The primary incentive behind illegal immigrant is economy opportunity, and if that dries up, so will illegal immigration (in time).
However, neither Democrats nor Republicans want to impose strict penalties on businesses. These very same businesses and entrepreneurs fund their campaigns. It's a very nice reciprocal relationship, and it's why all efforts to stem illegal immigration focus on border security and silly proposals like this one.
birthright citizenship. If a country follows jus soli, anyone born inside its borders is deemed to be a citizen. Some of these countries include Canada, Argentina, Pakistan, Mexico and Brazil.
here is a list of countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Specifi...
not exactly a winning argument to be honest
several countries don't offer it at all or do so with at least some restrictions
That went to Mexico so their kid could be born a Mexican citizen.
Real estate. Foreigners have more hoops to jump through. And there is a yearly fee called a Fido Comiso too. Mexican citizens don't have to pay for that. There are also tax issues. And work issues.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Woof...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
FeeDoe CoeMeeSoe.
Not a speck of cereal.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Actually that Ius Soli, but the i is pronounced like a j.
Like Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdæorvm.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I can understand giving citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants in cases where those children have spent many years here. I don't see why the government shouldn't be allowed to send a newborn and its illegal immigrant parents back to their country of origin. It's simply not fair that people who come here illegally should be able to stay just because they managed to produce a child before they were caught. At the same time, however, no humane government should separate a young child from its parents. Therefore, the only rational and humane course of action is to send both the parents and the child back to their home country.
"In a number of countries, the automatic application of jus soli has been modified to impose some additional requirements for children of foreign parents, such as the parent being a permanent resident or having lived in the country for a period of time. Jus soli has been modified in the following countries:
* United Kingdom on 1 January 1983
* Australia on 20 August 1986[2]
* Republic of Ireland on 1 January 2005[2]
* New Zealand on 1 January 2006[2]
* South Africa on 6 October 1995[2]
* France also operates a modified form of jus soli"
It's needs to be modified.
And I admit, I'm asking, because I don't know. In any of those countries, is jus soli actually part of the the constitution?
Personally, I don't think amending the Constitution in order to address a largely imaginary and highly over-stated problem is really such a good idea, but that's just me.
Other people born here? How far back do you go?
Who's an American? And who's not? 2nd generation? 3rd? 4th?
And what about the native American Indians?
Can they say, well, you're all fucked. Get the hell out!?
This is the most absurd piece of crap that I've heard in awhile.
Since this morning.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
on the amendment, if they amended art 1 sec 8 they could in theory go back as far as they wanted. Without doing so it would only effect those born after the date of ratification.
but i also have an open mind
would love to hear some intelligent reasoning to the contrary
keep in mind that few other nations offer absolute birthright citizenship (i believe US & Canada are the only "western/industrialized" nations that allow this unconditionally)
The UK. And most of Europe I think.
Come to think of it, I think every country has that birth right .
You are where you are born. And that's it. I know of no country that states if you are born there( Lets say Panama) and says you are not a citizen of that country.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
sorry but you are mistaken :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Specifi...
the US has a very loose policy when it comes to this. whether thats a good or bad thing is up for debate
Thank You for the info and the link.
32 countries.
And 7 modified.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
I heard that the cartels put a $1 million reward on him. I'll look up the reference.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cg...
"Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned. Love is given." --Unknown author, found in Guide to Texas Etiquette by Kinky Friedman
I hate to say it but I'm not sure this is such a terrible idea. I realize Lindsey is full of it and what he is saying would never be legal but I think the idea that just being born here no longer guarantees citizenship. I.e. amending the constitution so you can't just be born here and become a citizen.
And yes we are all imigrants, blah, blah, blah... But we need to start facing reality. This country is fucked in a big way and we are facing more problems not less in the future. An insane debt left to us by Bush. An economy based on oil which is running out. And global warming, lack of clean water, ...
So this isn't the country that could say "send me your huddled masses". We need to form a coalition with the disenfrachised. We need to stop letting the Rethugs get all those middle and lower class white people to vote against their interests and to do that we need to make some hard decisions and I think one of them is to say we rethink our immigration policy.
...are said to be 20% of the population. That's a lot more than huddled masses. I agree that something needs to be radically changed, for example the multi-national corporations that rape and despoil countries like Mexico and Guatamala, be held accountable. These folks, for the most part, don't really want to leave home. Hard economic facts force them to do so.
"Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned. Love is given." --Unknown author, found in Guide to Texas Etiquette by Kinky Friedman
First offense for hiring illegals 10K and 1 week in jail
second offense 100K and 1 month in prison
third offense 1 mill + prison time
fourth offense 10 mill + prison time
Put a few dozen rich employers in jail, then watch as the rest make sure they never hire an "illegal" again....
No jobs for illegals means no illegals....period.
Enforce and strengthen the laws agains employers and the problem will take care of itself!
Cue the Kabuki....
I'm not saying we should try to deport everyone that is here. Besides the fact that it would be incredibly heartless and cruel it won't work because there are too many large corporations that depend on those people to harvest crops and slaughter animals. What I'm saying is that people on the left need to start to thinking (I hate to use these words but I used to be a consultant) out of the box. We need to start showing the majority of the american people that we are on their side not the fing rethugs and to do that we may need to make some hard choices.
In this case not deport people here but change the rules, even change the constitution for future generations.
It's just that no one wants to accept them.
I agree. There are rational solutions. If everyone was as intelligent and well informed as you and I and would vote and participate in democracy based on that knowledge the world would be a great place.
We wouldn't have to worry about all the Tea Baggers who continue to vote against their interest. Who vote for politicians who will cut the very social security and medicare programs that they so desparately need. But the world isn't like that. If it were we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bush and Sarah Palin would be working at some Wasillah diner.
I live in the real world and think we need to face up to the real problems we have and to do that we have to get those idiot tea baggers, at least some of them, to stop voting against their interests and to do that we have to compromise some of our pristine left wing values.
to ask moms that don't quite fit the correct skin to tone for their papers.
governing emergency rooms, that say a woman in labor can't be turned away. She can be put on an ambulance and taken to a cheaper hospital, though.
"Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned. Love is given." --Unknown author, found in Guide to Texas Etiquette by Kinky Friedman
C'mon. He doesn't want to repeal the 14th Amendment in its entirety.
He wants to amend Section 1 of the Amendment, and specifically the part about birthright citizenship.
Let's get our facts right otherwise we're no better than Freepers.
I'll tweak the title.
If your parents are American citizens, and are overseas, and you happen to be born in a foreign country, you are eligible for dual citizenship.
Same applies if your parents are here when you are born if they are foreign nationals. But, I think the issue is legal residency . If your parents are here legally when you are born.
As far as dual citizenship goes, I could be wrong about this, but I think the US makes you decide at 18.
I know in the UK, if you are a Brit citizen, your spouse is automatically entitled to all benefits such as healthcare. And can claim Brit citizenship. If your children are say, American, and the Father is Brit, the children can automatically claim Brit citizenship(Their Fathers).
What is your conceptual, continuity?
He slipped into his comments the fact he wants to require people to speak English before becoming a citizen. Why? English is not inherently a better language than Spanish, and it's certainly not native to these shores. Language grows, changes, merges, mutates and evolves (gasp!) regardless of any human laws about it. In 300 years most North Americans will speak some form of Spanglish, probably including other influences unpredictable at this moment, regardless of what white southerners pass into law in 2011.
While according to a recent report I heard on PBS a simplified form of English will be something of the international language that's being called Globish.
So great, we already feel like the rest of the world doesn't understand us.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
If it's o.k. for Hispanics moving to the U.S. to preserve their language and culture, why isn't it o.k. for Anglo-Americans to do the same?
A couple of them, even. Adopting 'English only' laws has nothing to do with preserving language and culture, which are always changing anyway. Not to mention that there is no single 'American language' or 'American culture' anyway.
And a little bit of information that people seem to either not know or just be willing to ignore - English is not the first language for quite a few people that are American citizens by birth. Let's start with Puerto Rico and Guam, shall we?
Worth a read:
British citizenship by birth in the United Kingdom
Before 1983, UK's law was identical to US law.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
It was worth the read.
The laws keep changing.
And with that, I say goodnight.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
ciao4now
:)
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
to turn legal citizenship into a BIG WEDGE ISSUE for the 2012 election. Rove did it (with gay marriage) to get Christians to the polls in 2000 and 2004.
what language does he require? I can't understand him and I live in Wisconsin which is in the USA.
They have to blame their failed policies on someone. In the 80's it was welfare queens driving cadillacs. I have never seen any but I heard about them constantly. Kinda like believing in Bigfoot I guess.
Republicans are liars and simply cannot be trusted.
Republicans are liars and simply cannot be trusted.
I hope this man doesn't make the foolish mistake of claiming that he,
or anyone like him, is a patriot. Never again.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Republicans extremist hatred for the US Constitution really knows no bounds does it.
The first step toward having a system that "doesn't reward cheating" would be to abolish the government and all the cheats and liars (e.g. Graham) who use it to line their own pockets to the loss and detriment of the common person.
The easiest way to solve the illegal immigrant problem is to start arresting the employers who hire them. That will get their attention right pronto like! If they can't get jobs, they won't come.
And while they are at it, the Right wing returds need to start crying out what I di, from every place I can say it to all,
"Bring our jobs back from Mexico. And China and the Asian Sub-Continent while they are at it."
ok, i admit i am not an epert on the constitution, bt i do recall that the 14th ammendment states that the now former slaves are citizens of the usa, does it not? so what part is graham wanting to repeal? the law says anybody born in the usa is a citizen, does it not? so, if you are, say an expat from england, and you are preggers upon arrivial on american shores, and give birth to a baby here, your child isn't american?
or does it only apply to brown skinned people who give birth chilren in this country? what about illegals who enter this country from asia, or the middle east, europe? does this apply to their children as well?
hm, on one hand we have to throw obama under the bus...on the other hand we get rid of all of the lawyers...
tough choice.
So, if Lindsay Graham and his ilk claim that Mexicans are cheating by coming to this country to have babies born as US citizens, do they also claim that corporations, CEOs, and rich individuals are cheating when they move their corporate headquarters and bank accounts offshore and to foreign countries in order to avoid paying taxes? And if they do admit this, then which category of people would they say is doing the greater harm to our country?
My grandmother came to America in 1915, from Italy. Until she died in 1976, she never really learned English, in any view, the person who suffered most was her.
I don't know if mandatory English as a first language is the way to go, but in the long run don't we all wind up diminished, when there is a language gap, if only by simply doing a better of communicating? The question is, what do we do to make it better?
As to his second point, I've never heard of "stop and drop", but, ok if it does happen as often as Graham implies it shouldn't be allowed to continue, it's just, with our health care system the way it is why would an illegal risk having children in America?
Comments are closed on this entry