• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP leader McConnell: Fourteenth Amendment is in need of review

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Excerpted from “GOP leader McConnell: Fourteenth Amendment is in need of review” By J. Taylor Rushing
 and Bob Cusack, The Hill, 08/02/10 06:56 PM ET
[SIZE="+2"]S[/SIZE]enate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told The Hill on Monday that Congress “ought to take a look at” changing the 14th Amendment, which gives the children of illegal immigrants a right to U.S. citizenship.

McConnell’s statement signals growing support within the GOP for the controversial idea, which has also recently been touted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). …
Conservatives really aren't too interested in conserving the foundations of this nation, are they? No, not lately.

They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles. — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Likely, both.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,428
Reaction score
16,259
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Conservatives really aren't too interested in conserving the foundations of this nation, are they? No, not lately.

They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles. — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Likely, both.
Section 1 of the 14th amendment was created to make citizens out of the freed slaves and their descendants. Section 1 of the 14th amendment does not apply to everyone born on US soil.Why else have the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 if section 1 of the 14th amendment applied to anyone born on US soil? The 14th amendment is simply misused by pro-illegals.

As for the anchor baby problem this can be eliminated simply by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act of 196 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than spouse or minor children.This is what makes a anchor baby a anchor baby, not the 14th amendment. By eliminating the this provision you can end anchor babies.
 
Last edited:

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Section 1 of the 14th amendment was created to make citizens out of the freed slaves and their descendants. Section 1 of the 14th amendment does not apply to everyone born on US soil.Why else have the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 if section 1 of the 14th amendment applied to anyone born on US soil? The 14th amendment is simply misused by pro-illegals.

As for the anchor baby problem this can be eliminated simply by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act of 196 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than spouse or minor children.This is what makes a anchor baby a anchor baby, not the 14th amendment. By eliminating the this provision you can end anchor babies.
Exactly, and doing that will eliminate the tourist baby industry, which is huge. People from all around the world get tourist visas just so they can come to the US and have their babies here, thus making them citizens. It's a booming trade in some countries.
 

FilmFestGuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Section 1 of the 14th amendment was created to make citizens out of the freed slaves and their descendants. Section 1 of the 14th amendment does not apply to everyone born on US soil.Why else have the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 if section 1 of the 14th amendment applied to anyone born on US soil? The 14th amendment is simply misused by pro-illegals.

As for the anchor baby problem this can be eliminated simply by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act of 196 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than spouse or minor children.This is what makes a anchor baby a anchor baby, not the 14th amendment. By eliminating the this provision you can end anchor babies.
Technically, not true: SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia pretty much made it clear that as long as the parents have residence (could that be read as "legal residence?") then the kid is a citizen.

However, your suggestion that the family link in immigration law be changed is okay.

Look, I don't know a college educated person who would clean toilets or clear landscaping (at least in Nashville - not today). What about simply creating easier-to-get guest worker permits that give people up to 24-months of legal residence. They then have to reapply and if they're arrested for any crime (not a civil offense like a traffic ticket); they're out.

I just wish people would sit down and discuss ideas with one another. Altering the Constitution is not one that's likely to work and it's yet another demographic killer for the Republican Party. At some point they need to recognize that they're going to alienate a HUGE voting population that is growing quickly (and I mean Hispanic citizens - not illegals).
 

FilmFestGuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Exactly, and doing that will eliminate the tourist baby industry, which is huge. People from all around the world get tourist visas just so they can come to the US and have their babies here, thus making them citizens. It's a booming trade in some countries.
How about not giving tourist visas to women beyond so-many-months pregnant? I can't imagine that would unconstitutional since they're not citizens.

It doesn't require altering the Constitution to fix the problem of anchor baby tourism.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
14,845
Reaction score
5,850
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Conservatives really aren't too interested in conserving the foundations of this nation, are they? No, not lately.
The 14th amendment was enacted almost a hundered years after the nation's founding, so birthright citizenship is hardly a "foundation of this nation." There was a time when such an amendment was needed, but now we're in a minority of mostly third-world countries that share in this.

I have to agree with McConnell - it should be reviewed.
 

FilmFestGuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The 14th amendment was enacted almost a hundered years after the nation's founding, so birthright citizenship is hardly a "foundation of this nation." There was a time when such an amendment was needed, but now we're in a minority of mostly third-world countries that share in this.

I have to agree with McConnell - it should be reviewed.
But if that's going to be your solution, it's going to fail.

To me, this is just another attempt by Republicans to pretend they're doing something when really, they're not doing a damn thing. It's all political hooey and nothing more.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
But if that's going to be your solution, it's going to fail.

To me, this is just another attempt by Republicans to pretend they're doing something when really, they're not doing a damn thing. It's all political hooey and nothing more.
I think this is just an attempt to claim the Republicans aren't doing anything that's undermined by the fact that you are bitching about them trying to do something you just happen not to like.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Conservatives really aren't too interested in conserving the foundations of this nation, are they? No, not lately.

They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles. — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Likely, both.
This isn't likely to go far, but I applaud both Senators McConnell, Kyl and Graham for their intestinal fortitude. Good for them!!

Americans are completely and utterly frustrated with the state of our immigration system. We have a Congress who is trying to sneak amnesty in the backdoor whether we want it or not. A White House that is refusing to enforce the laws of the land....AND blocking individual states who are doing the best they can to enforce them on their own.

I don't live in a border state. But I can completely and totally understand and sympathize with their position. Their budgets are being descimated. Their parks are being over-run. Their neighborhoods have become battle zones. They are embittered. And they have every GD right to be.

The fact that senators are "upping the ante," so to speak, is wonderful, in my opinion. Our entire Congress should be ashamed of themselves. Whatever their hidden agenda is, it is 100% wrong. Both sides of the aisle are being disingenuous about immigration reform. They don't want to tackle it before the elections because they know damn well what the people want.

IMO, the immigration problem should have been tackled on President Obama's first day in office...not 18 months or more later. Good for the senators.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't know why people can't read a simple sentence and understand what is being said.

Here is the problem part.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. 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.
Now people are taking "jurisdiction" to mean what a cop means when he says it's out of my jurisdiction.... or out of my city/county.

If that were so the above quoted sentence would read....

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and born in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Rather redundant isn't it?

So what does “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean?

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Sen. W. Williams:
In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't know why people can't read a simple sentence and understand what is being said.

Here is the problem part.



Now people are taking "jurisdiction" to mean what a cop means when he says it's out of my jurisdiction.... or out of my city/county.

If that were so the above quoted sentence would read....

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and born in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Rather redundant isn't it?

So what does “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean?

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Sen. W. Williams:
In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
I don't know why people don't understand that an Amendment could change that.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't know why people don't understand that an Amendment could change that.
Why would you want to change it?..... are you in favor of "anchor babies"?
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why would you want to change it?..... are you in favor of "anchor babies"?
I think I'd have to answer no, although cautiously, thinking of unintended consequences. ;-) As the 14th Amendment stands, anchor babies are citizens. No one disputes that. These hearings would open that interpretation up for RE-interpretation -- or to simply negate the 14th with another amendment.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think I'd have to answer no, although cautiously, thinking of unintended consequences. ;-) As the 14th Amendment stands, anchor babies are citizens. No one disputes that. These hearings would open that interpretation up for RE-interpretation -- or to simply negate the 14th with another amendment.
Read my post #10..... read all of it..... read it slowly and think about what I wrote.

The 14th amendment in no way, shape, or form admits anchor babies.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Read my post #10..... read all of it..... read it slowly and think about what I wrote.

The 14th amendment in no way, shape, or form admits anchor babies.
Crunch, I understand what you're saying. But this is just derailing the intent of this thread. As of today in the United States of America anchor babies are citizens. Until the interpretation is changed by the Supreme Court of the United States or another Amendment is ratified they will continue to be citizens of the United States.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Crunch, I understand what you're saying. But this is just derailing the intent of this thread. As of today in the United States of America anchor babies are citizens. Until the interpretation is changed by the Supreme Court of the United States or another Amendment is ratified they will continue to be citizens of the United States.
That's true... but if a person reads the amendment and the back ground to the amendment, they will realize the amendment doesn't need to be changed... it just needs to be interpreted correctly (plain English) and applied. Unfortunately we have some very uneducated people on this board and in Congress that don't understand anything but their own narrow ideas and desires.

Hopefully a hearing and investigation by the Congress would clear up the anchor baby problem..... assuming of course that they can read and understand plain English.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
That's true... but if a person reads the amendment and the back ground to the amendment, they will realize the amendment doesn't need to be changed... it just needs to be interpreted correctly (plain English) and applied. Unfortunately we have some very uneducated people on this board and in Congress that don't understand anything but their own narrow ideas and desires.

Hopefully a hearing and investigation by the Congress would clear up the anchor baby problem..... assuming of course that they can read and understand plain English.
Maybe what's needed is for Arizona (?) to challenge the 14th Amendment. ;-)
 

FilmFestGuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I think this is just an attempt to claim the Republicans aren't doing anything that's undermined by the fact that you are bitching about them trying to do something you just happen not to like.
Again, you applaud them for doing something that absolutely won't work and won't happen. It's also not a "conservative" solution; it's a radical solution.

They could sit down and craft a bill that would end it and make some compromises that would get it passed. Instead, they talk about amending the Constitution - which, even if it did work, would take YEARS to ratify it. Keep in mind, the 26th Amendment was proposed in 1954 and passed in 1971. The 27th Amendment took 202 years.

It's a non-solution for political purposes and it's obviously working on the masses because right here people are pretending it's a good idea.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Again, you applaud them for doing something that absolutely won't work and won't happen.
I haven't applauded anyone. What I have pointed out is that you are griping, saying they have no solutions, when you are sitting there bitching about one of their solutions.
 

FilmFestGuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I haven't applauded anyone. What I have pointed out is that you are griping, saying they have no solutions, when you are sitting there bitching about one of their solutions.
And how successful was their push to alter the Constitution to ban gay marriage? Didn't happen. Not even close.

They just told their base that to make them happy.

This is just what they're doing again. Trust me, it's nothing but a calculated political move.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
And how successful was their push to alter the Constitution to ban gay marriage? Didn't happen. Not even close.

They just told their base that to make them happy.

This is just what they're doing again. Trust me, it's nothing but a calculated political move.
While I'm sure that's part of it, I think it's a very good thing. The White House now has **** comin' from allll directions. A constituency that's pi**ed off, individual states that are pi**ed off, and now three senators trying to bring something to the floor for discussion that would change the whole complexion of illegal immigration.

It's a good thing, IMO. And Crunch's point is well taken. His post is an important one for all to consider.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,751
Reaction score
27,898
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Conservatives really aren't too interested in conserving the foundations of this nation, are they? No, not lately.

They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles. — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Likely, both.
Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding!! Changing the Amendment IS the proper way to make a change. You just want illegals to continue to stream into the US so they can become Democrat voters. Just admit it why don't you?
 

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Attacking the foundational principle that all people born in the United States of America are full and equal citizens is about as anti-American as it gets in my opinion. I look around and I see a lot of anti-Americans.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,926
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,926
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Attacking the foundational principle that all people born in the United States of America are full and equal citizens is about as anti-American as it gets in my opinion. I look around and I see a lot of anti-Americans.
Stop with the drama! I bet you're anti-2nd Amendment and think that the government should shut down Fox News.
 
Top Bottom