Thread: Rubio & Crist Against Repeal Of 14th Amendment

Aug 11, 2010 9:17 am US/Eastern Rubio & Crist Against Repeal Of 14th Amendment
Reporting Tim Kephart

It took seven different attempts over eight days to finally get an answer from Marco Rubio's campaign; but Rubio finally acknowledged that he, like Governor Charlie Crist, doesn't support a repeal of the 14th Amendment.

Rubio's stance puts him on the other side of the aisle from GOP leaders and some Tea Party leaders.

The campaign finally made the announcement late Monday afternoon. CBS4's Tim Kephart first posed the question to the campaign last Monday.

The issue exploded after multiple GOP lawmakers including John McCain, Jeff Sessions, John Boehner, and others first signaled their willingness to repeal the 14th Amendment. Ironically, the passage of the 14th Amendment was a key accomplishment of the Republican Party after the Civil War.

"I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the [14th] Amendment had in mind," Sessions told Politico.com, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows: 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Senator McCain said last Tuesday that he supports the concept of holding Congressional hearings to discuss a repeal of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment was originally enacted to guarantee that states could not deny citizenship to former slaves. It's also become known as the equal protection amendment and has opened the door to landmark legislation and court decisions including Brown vs. Board of Education; Roe vs. Wade; and many others.

Independent Florida U.S. Senate candidate Charlie Crist's campaign sounded understandably stunned when CBS4's Tim Kephart asked about Kyl and Graham's stance last Monday. The Crist campaign is solidly opposed to any such repeal of the 14th Amendment.

The sentiment expressed by GOP leaders, including Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, is gaining traction amongst some in the Republican Party and in conservative circles in the political arena.

The extreme view takes aim at the children of illegal immigrants whose parents often stay in the U.S. after a child is born in this country. Some call the children, "anchor babies."

But the idea of repealing the 14th Amendment to deal with the immigration issue is so extreme to most people, that even Lou Dobbs, who made a living on fighting immigration, said that overturning the amendment is too much.

"The idea that anchor babies somehow require changing the 14th Amendment, I part ways with the Senators on that because I believe the 14th Amendment, particularly in its due process and equal protection clauses, is so important," Dobbs said on Fox News.

If a movement to overturn the 14th Amendment gained enough momentum to actually reach the legislatures of states across the country, it could wreak havoc in American society.

The second clause of the 14th Amendment determines how representatives to the House are selected.

Specifically, part of the 14th Amendment removes the 3/5 clause in the original constitution that allowed for African-American citizens to be counted as 3/5 of a person.

In addition, if the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment were to be removed, there's nothing that would stop a more conservative Supreme Court from reversing any landmark decision that utilized the 14th Amendment.

http://cbs4.com/local/14th.amendment.re ... 54198.html

Excellent article on birth tourism and how pervasive it's become. The loophole MUST be closed to prevent this practice of having anchor babies.

I find it repugnant that the same people who have no problems with aborting babies, have a problem with ending birthright citizenship. They seem to think innocent anchor babies should have the right to be US citizens, but somehow have no reservations about aborting innocent babies who are not anchor babies?


http://www.eturbonews.com/15529/us-birt ... g-business

We all should be against a REPEAL of the 14th amendment, but that isn't required to end birthright citizenship.

Even the journalists who don't demogogue the issue by talking about REPEAL of the 14th amendment still frame the issue as being entirely about amending that amendment.

But most of us opponents of birthright citizenship do not believe the 14th amendment even needs to be clarified. We believe Congress could pass a law requiring a baby to have at least one parent who is a citizen or legal immigrant before being given U.S. citizenship. We also believe it would be taken to court and the Supreme Court would ultimately decide.

Many journalists also claim that Supreme Court decisions in the past have affirmed that the 14th Amendment requires citizenship for babies of illegal aliens.

But any past decision has been about babies of LEGAL immigrants.

And if you examine the Mexican constitution, a baby born of at least one Mexican parent is forever considered a Mexican regardless of where they were born or reside. Thus Mexico seems to have jurisdiction over their anchor babies born here.

Originally Posted by magyart

We all should be against a REPEAL of the 14th amendment, but that isn't required to end birthright citizenship.

Even the journalists who don't demogogue the issue by talking about REPEAL of the 14th amendment still frame the issue as being entirely about amending that amendment.

But most of us opponents of birthright citizenship do not believe the 14th amendment even needs to be clarified. We believe Congress could pass a law requiring a baby to have at least one parent who is a citizen or legal immigrant before being given U.S. citizenship. We also believe it would be taken to court and the Supreme Court would ultimately decide.

Many journalists also claim that Supreme Court decisions in the past have affirmed that the 14th Amendment requires citizenship for babies of illegal aliens.

But any past decision has been about babies of LEGAL immigrants.

You are absolutely correct! Intepretation of the 14th ammendment has been twisted The key words are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The child does not become an instant citizen. (In Canada, the child does have citizenship, but parents are not allowed to stay in the country to raise the child under any circumstances) If an American gives birth in any civilized country in Europe, neither they or their child/are considered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" other than obeying i.e. traffic laws, etc. or any law required of a visiting tourist.

What we have allowed is insane.

The congress critters DO NOT want to repeal the 14th amendment they just want to clarify Birthright citizenship.

There is a big difference in saying Repubs want to repeal the 14th and Repubs want to change/clarify B.right citizenship.

I think reporters are doing this on purpose so people will be against making B. Citizen changes because they will think Repubs want to Repeal the whole 14th Amend. which everyone would be against including me.

Spreading the rumor Repubs want to abolish the 14th could have damaging consequences in the fall elections.

TexSawdust wrote:
"And if you examine the Mexican constitution, a baby born of at least one Mexican parent is forever considered a Mexican regardless of where they were born or reside. Thus Mexico seems to have jurisdiction over their anchor babies born here."

The Mexican Congress has passed a law allowing Mexican citizens to hold dual citizenship with other nations, and made it retroactive to include persons born in other countries to Mexican parents (which, I assume, would include people born in the U.S. to Mexican national parents here illegally) to try reinforce the concept of "once a Mexican, always a Mexican." Mexican citizens holding dual citizenship are allowed (and encouraged by the Mexican government) to vote both in our elections and theirs.

"How do you tie down a Gulliver like the United States," said a Mexican
official? "One silken thread at a time." (Remember the Lilliputs from Gulliver's Travels.)

These people must be stopped, as they will stop at nothing in their goal of conquering this nation.

NOT ONE SINGLE AMERICAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE DUAL CITIZENSHIP!

Ratbstard wrote:
"NOT ONE SINGLE AMERICAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE DUAL CITIZENSHIP!"

Hear, Hear! I have written and written that, beside opposing amnesty, this is something major we should work toward - legislation which will 1) forbid the granting of Dual Citizenship in the United States; and 2) require that all U.S. citizens who already have been granted Dual Citizenship at birth be required to chose, when they reach the legal age of 18, which country to which they will declare allegiance, renouncing citizenship in the other.

Originally Posted by Texas2step

Ratbstard wrote:
"NOT ONE SINGLE AMERICAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE DUAL CITIZENSHIP!"

Hear, Hear! I have written and written that, beside opposing amnesty, this is something major we should work toward - legislation which will 1) forbid the granting of Dual Citizenship in the United States; and 2) require that all U.S. citizens who already have been granted Dual Citizenship at birth be required to chose, when they reach the legal age of 18, which country to which they will declare allegiance, renouncing citizenship in the other.

At the time I became a US citizen, holding dual citizenship was not an option, I had to renounce my citizenship in my birth country. I was 11 years old at the time, the early 70's. When did this all change?!?!?!?!

Why the hell are we allowing dual citizenship now?!?!?! It's a bonehead move.