Republicans want review of birthright citizenship

[The Spartan]

AP by way of Yahoo News.

Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer Ben Evans, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 3 mins ago

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.

I think I'll be keeping an eye on this. To be perfectly honest, I can get behind an adjustment to the 14th amendment such that it only applies to legal immigrants (details notwithstanding), but I don't, frankly, trust the Republicans, to come up with a set of sensible guidelines. And I suspect that if the Democrats did come up with a sensible counter plan that it'd be demonized into being weak or useless or whatever.

[SirNitram]

I might agree with the idea to make it apply to legal immigrants, if the immigration system worked. Since it doesn't, hell no. Especially not with GOP tools like VA AG Cuccinelli suggesting it shouldn't protect gays.

[Gil Hamilton]

That constitutional amendment will pass on the same day the anti-Gay Marriage or anti-Abortion amendment will pass, on the Twelfth of Never. It's going to be another amendment that politicians push for street cred to tell their constituency that they are fighting the good fight, in a way that costs them nothing.

McCain, for example, needs this sort of thing. He's even having trouble here, having managed to slip OUT of Senator-for-Life status in a state where every fifth road is named after him. If he's going to stay elected, he needs to look extra super tough on Immigration around here (hence all his "McCain: Fighting for a Secure Border" billboards).

This won't float, just angry squarwking.

[The Spartan]

I might agree with the idea to make it apply to legal immigrants, if the immigration system worked. Since it doesn't, hell no. Especially not with GOP tools like VA AG Cuccinelli suggesting it shouldn't protect gays.

That's sort of what I mean when I say that I don't trust the Republicans to come up with set of sensible guidelines since there's will inevitably by someone on their undesirables list who someone will try to exclude in the process.

[MKSheppard]

McCain, for example, needs this sort of thing. He's even having trouble here, having managed to slip OUT of Senator-for-Life status in a state where every fifth road is named after him. If he's going to stay elected, he needs to look extra super tough on Immigration around here (hence all his "McCain: Fighting for a Secure Border" billboards).

Someone said it best -- if only John McCain had fought for the Presidency in 2008 the way he's fighting for his Senate Seat in 2010....

[SirNitram]

I must change my view. I answered off-the-cuff, and forgot something terribly important. Virtually every nation now goes by the old British legal position known as 'Law of the ground', as opposed to 'Law Of The Blood'. In otherwords, where your born is where you're a citizen. If we reject this, we wind up like Germany and France, with a permenant population of stateless people without rights. ANd they tend to get violent.

[Darksider]

Someone said it best -- if only John McCain had fought for the Presidency in 2008 the way he's fighting for his Senate Seat in 2010....

We'd have an old white paid shill for corporations instead of a young black one? I fail to see how President McCain would be any better for the country than Obama. The worst thing you can say about Obama is that he's inexperienced and unwilling to "lay down the law" for the democratic party. McCain would be actively steering this country even further into the toilet.

You know, sometimes I wonder if I should vote Republican simply because they'll torpedo the country faster than the Democrats and we can re-build it as something better, but then I remember how much pain and suffering said torpedoing would likely cause.

[Gil Hamilton]

Someone said it best -- if only John McCain had fought for the Presidency in 2008 the way he's fighting for his Senate Seat in 2010....

He'd still have lost, because the moment he picked Palin as his VP, the election stopped being about him at all. He was just her slightly creepy pappy in the background.

What he's paying for right now is that he's just got too long a history of being SOMEWHAT moderate when the really conservative conservatives in Arizona have alot of political momentum. The Republican party in Arizona is right now to the right of McCain. While McCain still has alot of support for being senator for so long, he is doesn't have the ideological purity. Conservatives are rallying right now that they've got a conservative governor who isn't vetoing all the moonbat stuff that comes from the AZ legislature and want a True Conservative Champion. They aren't willing to settle for the sort of conservative Republican who has the best chance of winning the election (McCain), but feel they can elect a Tea Party All Star. Hence, McCain is having to fight now.

[MKSheppard]

We'd have an old white paid shill for corporations instead of a young black one?

I see the joke went past you.

During the 2008 election, it seemed to a lot of conservatives that McCain was just going through the motions -- no real fire in him -- since if he lost the presidental election, he could go back to being the Senior Senator from Arizona.

But ever since J.D. Hayworth began to pose a serious threat to McCain in the GOP primaries for the 2010 Senate election -- McCain has been totally scorched earth -- build a damn wall, plant it with guard towers and machine guns and bears that shit landmines -- in his campaign; something totally out of character with his last 15-20 years of Senate business in regards to amnesty, etc...making a lot of people wonder where that McCain was in 2008.

[That NOS Guy]

I see the joke went past you.

During the 2008 election, it seemed to a lot of conservatives that McCain was just going through the motions -- no real fire in him -- since if he lost the presidental election, he could go back to being the Senior Senator from Arizona.

But ever since J.D. Hayworth began to pose a serious threat to McCain in the GOP primaries for the 2010 Senate election -- McCain has been totally scorched earth -- build a damn wall, plant it with guard towers and machine guns and bears that shit landmines -- in his campaign; something totally out of character with his last 15-20 years of Senate business in regards to amnesty, etc...making a lot of people wonder where that McCain was in 2008.

I would surmise he was trying to win an election.

[MKSheppard]

He'd still have lost

Well yes.

Considering he'd spent 2000-2008 basically fucking over the Republican base in a lot of ways possible...a lot of people who would have campaigned enthuastically for him in 2000 basically were "meh, why the fuck should I take my time to do this for John McCain, given the last seven years of what he's done?"

because the moment he picked Palin as his VP, the election stopped being about him at all.

I'd have to agree with you there. The spotlight swung away from McCain and onto Palin; and for all her faults, she does have the ability to connect with the base in the same way that Obama was able to with his base.

I can't help but wonder if that was one reason McCain's team picked Palin -- to get her ability to motivate the base to achieve short term goals - e.g. drag McCain's sorry ass to near the finish line; while in the long term damaging her credibility by introducing her to the national public much too early in her political development.

[Broomstick]

McCain, for example, needs this sort of thing.

Although I find it ironic, given that McCain actually was born outside the United States, in Panama. No, his situation is quite what's being attacked here, but you'd think someone born outside the US (to US citizens, hence he's a born citizen and eligible to run for President) would be a little more sensitive on these issues.

But then... he's a republican so nevermind.

[Pelranius]

What sort of legal immigrants though? It would be absurd if we gave citizenship at birth to the children of rich birth tourist South Korean and Taiwanese who are trying to weasel their future sons out of military service simply because their parents can purchase it.

[General Zod]

What sort of legal immigrants though? It would be absurd if we gave citizenship at birth to the children of rich birth tourist South Korean and Taiwanese who are trying to weasel their future sons out of military service simply because their parents can purchase it.

Unless you plan on forbidding any woman who's pregnant from visiting the US I really don't see how you'd hope to enact the kind of fine toothed comb you'd need for something like that.

[Instant Sunrise]

Why should we deny people citizenship over factors that they have no control over?

What state would these people be a part of? Would their children be able to become citizens? Does a path to citizenship even exist for them?

[Pelranius]

What sort of legal immigrants though? It would be absurd if we gave citizenship at birth to the children of rich birth tourist South Korean and Taiwanese who are trying to weasel their future sons out of military service simply because their parents can purchase it.

Unless you plan on forbidding any woman who's pregnant from visiting the US I really don't see how you'd hope to enact the kind of fine toothed comb you'd need for something like that.

I'm thinking of extending birth at citizenship only to people who have greencards, people who have tourist visas or whatever don't fall into that category (they can still come for all I care), or it would make banning citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants a complete joke.

[General Zod]

What sort of legal immigrants though? It would be absurd if we gave citizenship at birth to the children of rich birth tourist South Korean and Taiwanese who are trying to weasel their future sons out of military service simply because their parents can purchase it.

Unless you plan on forbidding any woman who's pregnant from visiting the US I really don't see how you'd hope to enact the kind of fine toothed comb you'd need for something like that.

I'm thinking of extending birth at citizenship only to people who have greencards, people who have tourist visas or whatever don't fall into that category (they can still come for all I care), or it would make banning citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants a complete joke.

You realize it can take years for someone to receive a green card, right? Someone who was born in the time leading up to receiving one would effectively be in limbo citizenship wise. Unless you offered exemptions, which opens up all other sorts of problems.

[PeZook]

I must change my view. I answered off-the-cuff, and forgot something terribly important. Virtually every nation now goes by the old British legal position known as 'Law of the ground', as opposed to 'Law Of The Blood'. In otherwords, where your born is where you're a citizen. If we reject this, we wind up like Germany and France, with a permenant population of stateless people without rights. ANd they tend to get violent.

That's just plain not true

[Pelranius]

You realize it can take years for someone to receive a green card, right? Someone who was born in the time leading up to receiving one would effectively be in limbo citizenship wise. Unless you offered exemptions, which opens up all other sorts of problems.

Yes, but the kids would still be none citizens unless they got naturalized themselves (so they'd be in the same place as the kids of the illegals). I don't think that becoming a citizen would automatically make one's children citizens too. And the problem applies as a whole to all the children of non citizens, legal and illegal.

[CaptainChewbacca]

McCain, for example, needs this sort of thing.

Although I find it ironic, given that McCain actually was born outside the United States, in Panama.

I hate to nitpick, but people bring this up as a counter to the birther argument all the time (as if it needed a counter) and its based on false assumptions. John McCain was born to two US Citizens in an American Military Zone. As such he meets the qualifications of citizenship by blood AND by location.

The birther argument is that if Obama was born in Africa then he would fulfill neither, as his father was not a citizen and his mother was not old enough to have lived in the United States for two years as an adult.

So, the comparison is unequal. Sorry, that one really bugs me.

[SirNitram]

I must change my view. I answered off-the-cuff, and forgot something terribly important. Virtually every nation now goes by the old British legal position known as 'Law of the ground', as opposed to 'Law Of The Blood'. In otherwords, where your born is where you're a citizen. If we reject this, we wind up like Germany and France, with a permenant population of stateless people without rights. ANd they tend to get violent.

That's just plain not true

Ah, yes. However, the point about a permenant underclass being created and the unrest they tend to make is well proven.

[PeZook]

Ah, yes. However, the point about a permenant underclass being created and the unrest they tend to make is well proven.

It depends on how the naturalization process works, but yes, countries practicing ius sanguinis generally have more of a problem with it.

[Skgoa]

I must change my view. I answered off-the-cuff, and forgot something terribly important. Virtually every nation now goes by the old British legal position known as 'Law of the ground', as opposed to 'Law Of The Blood'. In otherwords, where your born is where you're a citizen. If we reject this, we wind up like Germany and France, with a permenant population of stateless people without rights.

Please expand on this, since I have no idea what you are talking about.

ANd they tend to get violent.

If you are referring to the banlieu riots a couple of years age, that was more a "poor ignored plebs" problem than a citizenship problem.

[Count Chocula]

Well looks like the Repubican party leadership, in their quest to jump on the "tough on illegal immigration" bandwagon, have stepped on their dicks again. Big surprise...not. As pointed out earlier, you'd need a Constitutional Convention, agreement on what aspects of the 14th Amendment to change, and of course with a ConCon the floodgates would be open for other constitutional amendments. Then it could take years to get the amendment(s) or amended 14th approved by 3/4 of the states. Yep, real smart move you tough Republican leaders! Boneheads.

So-called "anchor babies" personally annoy me, but they're citizens even if their parents ain't. It seems to me the best way to reduce the number of anchor babies would be to actually make an effort to reduce illegal immigration and deport illegals who are already here, especially those who are arrested for violent crimes. After they do their time, of course.

[Broomstick]

Why should we deny people citizenship over factors that they have no control over?

We do it routinely. There are many people in the US who were brought here by their parents as toddlers/young children who have no legal status. As children they had no say in becoming illegal residents. Nonetheless, they are treated as if they were autonomous adults as far as the immigration agencies are concerned.

As far as I know, the only way such people can become citizens is by leaving the country for 10 years or something like that, then reapplying for entry and maybe getting in after years more of waiting. If, however, they're caught by INS and expelled they maybe they can't come back ever? I confess I am hazy on the details here.