Thread: 14th amendment under fire again...

Republicans want review of birthright citizenship


WASHINGTON – Leading Republicans are joining a push to reconsider the constitutional amendment that grants automatic citizenship to people born in the United States.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Tuesday he supports holding hearings on the 14th Amendment right, although he emphasized that Washington's immigration focus should remain on border security.

His comments came as other Republicans in recent days have questioned or challenged birthright citizenship, embracing a cause that had largely been confined to the far right.

The senators include Arizona's John McCain, the party's 2008 presidential nominee; Arizona's Jon Kyl, the Republicans' second-ranking senator; Alabama's Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading negotiator on immigration legislation.

"I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, 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," Sessions said.

Legal experts say repealing the citizenship right can be done only through constitutional amendment, which would require approval by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of Congress and by three-fourths of the states. Legislation to amend the right, introduced previously in the House, has stalled.

The proposals are sure to appeal to conservative voters as immigration so far is playing a central role in November's elections. They also could carry risks by alienating Hispanic voters and alarming moderates who could view constitutional challenges as extreme. Hispanics have become the largest minority group in the United States, and many are highly driven by the illegal immigrant debate.

McConnell and McCain seemed to recognize the risk by offering guarded statements Tuesday.

McCain, who faces a challenge from the right in his re-election bid, said he supports reviewing citizenship rights. He emphasized, however, that amending the Constitution is a serious matter.

"I believe that the Constitution is a strong, complete and carefully crafted document that has successfully governed our nation for centuries and any proposal to amend the Constitution should receive extensive and thoughtful consideration," he said.

At a news conference, McConnell refused to endorse Graham's suggestion that citizenship rights be repealed for children of illegal immigrants. While refusing to take questions, he suggested instead that he would look narrowly into reports of businesses that help immigrants arrange to have babies in the United States in order to win their children U.S. citizenship.

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," including recently freed slaves.

Defenders of the amendment say altering it would weaken a fundamental American value while doing little to deter illegal immigration. They also say it would create bureaucratic hardships for parents giving birth.

Quoting a newspaper columnist, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Republicans were "either taking leave of their senses or their principles" in advocating repeal.

An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. as of January 2009, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100803/ap_ ... itizenship

14th not leagal anyway...

dirtyunclesam.com

Why does everybody keep calling for new laws when the old laws on the books work just fine? What I mean is that the 14th Amendment, when applied PROPERLY would work the way the founding fathers meant it to work. How could any of them even dream about air travel and other ways to circumvent the world, let alone put specific provisions in an amendment barring international invaders from having children on US soil to gain citizenship? Isn't it the same argument about immigration reform? Again, what is wrong with the original laws being put into practice? I mean who would buy a brand-new car, garage it for 10 years, and then whine that they need a new car 'cause the old one was broken? You didn't even drive it!! If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

keekee you are making me want to go read the 14th to get clear. My understanding is that this American citizenship game is a perversion of the original intent of the law and no, they had no idea that the Chinese would be setting up birthing centers so Chinese citizens could have an American born child among other things. So depending on how the original was written it might need to be tweaked to reflect original intent only since most of us disagree with the current perverse application of it.

It is not only repubs who want the 14th changed but every Dem I know are angry about this too.

Originally Posted by sarum

keekee you are making me want to go read the 14th to get clear. My understanding is that this American citizenship game is a perversion of the original intent of the law and no, they had no idea that the Chinese would be setting up birthing centers so Chinese citizens could have an American born child among other things. So depending on how the original was written it might need to be tweaked to reflect original intent only since most of us disagree with the current perverse application of it.

The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.

3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

This is an exastive study of the unconstitutionality of the 14th amendemnt but well worth the study.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html

Legal experts say repealing the citizenship right can be done only through constitutional amendment, which would require approval by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of Congress and by three-fourths of the states. Legislation to amend the right, introduced previously in the House, has stalled.

Birthright citizenship is not in the 14th amendment it is in case precedent begining almost thirty years later. Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray wrote an opinion to Wong Kim Ark which is a case regarding the child of two legal entrants. That opinion is where the problem lies not in the 14th amendment. Only a nut job would try to overturn the 14th amendment itself our country needs the rights it protects for those that it was intended for.

THE 14TH AMENDMENT -
EQUAL PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION

Mr. RARICK: Mr. Speaker, arrogantly ignoring clear-cut expressions in the Constitution of the United States, the declared intent of its drafters notwithstanding, our unelected Federal judges read out prohibitions of the Constitution of the United States by adopting the fuzzy haze of the 14th Amendment to legislate their personal ideas, prejudices, theories, guilt complexes, aims, and whims. Through the cooperation of intellectual educators, we have subjected ourselves to accept destructive use and meaning of words and phrases. We blindly accept new meanings and changed values to alter our traditional thoughts. We have tolerantly permitted the habitual misuse of words to serve as a vehicle to abandon our foundations and goals. Thus, the present use and expansion of the 14th Amendment is a sham--{H7162} serving as a crutch and hoodwink to precipitate a quasi-legal approach for overthrow of the tender balances and protections of limitation found in the Constitution.

But, interestingly enough, the 14th Amendment--whether ratified or not--was but the expression of emotional outpouring of public sentiment following the War Between Our States. Its obvious purpose and intent was but to free human beings from ownership as a chattel by other humans. Its aim was no more than to free the slaves.

As our politically appointed Federal judiciary proceeds down their chosen path of chaotic departure from the peoples' government by substituting their personal law rationalized under the 14th Amendment, their actions and verbiage brand them and their team as secessionists--rebels with pens instead of guns--seeking to destroy our Union.

They must be stopped. Public opinion must be aroused. The Union must and shall be preserved. Mr. Speaker, I ask to include in the Record, following my remarks, House Concurrent Resolution 208 of the Louisiana Legislature urging this Congress to declare the 14th Amendment illegal. Also, I include in the Record an informative and well-annotated treatise on the illegality of the 14th Amendment--the play toy of our secessionist judges--which has been prepared by Judge Lander H. Perez, of Louisiana.

The material referred to follows:
http://www.civil-liberties.com/cases/14con.html

See