Skip to main content




No. 2 Republican Wants 'Birthright Citizenship' Removed From U.S. Constitution



Kyl: Illegal Aliens' Kids Shouldn't Be Citizens


Wants Hearing on Republican backed 14th Amendment Which Grants Citizenship to Children of Illegal Immigrants Born in America

Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., said today that Congress should hold hearings to look into denying citizenship to illegal aliens' children born in the United States, as the fight over immigration widens into the explosive "birthright" issue.


Kyl told CBS' "Face the Nation" that he supports a call by fellow Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to introduce a new amendment to repeal the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.


Support is growing for this stunning reversal from Graham, who in 2007 drew the ire of Republicans when he lobbied for granting legal status to 12 million undocumented workers, and along with President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., led the failed immigration reform effort that would have given illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.


The 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868 to ensure that states would not deny citizenship to former slaves. It reads, "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."


Arizona's Republican State Sen. Russell Pearce - the architect of the controversial immigration law that was largely struck down by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton - also separately proposed the same measure.


"The 14th Amendment [has been] interpreted to provide that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what," Kyl said. "So the question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?"


Kyl said Congress should hold hearings and invite constitutional experts to look at the state of the 14th Amendment. The growing support for the issue suggests the Republicans are exploring different strategies to fight the Obama administration's victory over the Arizona immigration law, after Bolton issued a preliminary injunction on key provisions.

Kyl is a supporter of the law.


"I think the court's decision was wrong," he said today. "The governor and legislative leaders have talked about possibly tweaking - to use their phrase - the law to see if they can obviate the concerns the judge expressed. I don't think they can because her decision was very sweeping.

"I think it more likely that Congress could act to actually fix the problem," Kyl said, "by reaffirming that it is Congress' intent that the law be enforced, rather than having the administration decide that they don't want to thoroughly enforce the law."


Kyl said his support of the law has to do with illegal aliens taking jobs that Americans want; immigrants posing a burden on the state in the form of education, medical care and welfare benefits; and crime.


"To me the most important thing is the crime associated with it - not necessarily committed by illegal immigrants but committed on illegal immigrants, as well as the roughly 15 percent of the people who cross the border each year illegally who are criminals."


But this week's "Face the Nation" host Harry Smith pointed out that crime has had a negative correlation with the arrival of immigrants. "Crime in Phoenix, for instance, is down significantly over the last couple of years," Smith said.


"That's a gross generalization," Kyl said. "Property crimes are up. Certain violent crimes on certain parts of the citizenry are up. Phoenix is a very large source of kidnapping. It's called the kidnapping capital of the United States because the illegal immigrants who are brought to Phoenix for distribution throughout the country are held in drop houses. They are mistreated, horribly treated."

Kyl said the law is not discriminatory. "But if you live here in Arizona you'll appreciate the fact that we have a great tradition, particularly with our neighbor to the south, Mexico. It's not a matter of being anti-Hispanic. It's a matter of wanting to enforce the law."


But Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund disputed Kyl's claim.


"I think that whenever you enact something that requires police officers - as the law would have done - to engage in stereotyping, to engage in racial profiling, acting on what they understand to be the undocumented profile, that's going to result in discrimination against Latinos and others who may appear to be foreign, who may appear to be immigrants," Saenz said. "In that very practical sense, it is an anti-Latino law."


Saenz also lashed out against Kyl's support of the repeal of the 14th Amendment.


"I think it's deplorable," he said. "It's an attempt to turn our back on 150 years of constitutional history and tradition. I think it's contrary to the values of this country. I think it's an assault on the recognition that ours is a country of immigrants and always has been.


The 14th Amendment is very clear: Anyone who is born here, unless you are the child of a diplomat, is a United States citizen. That has led to great success. It's part of what has made this nation the great nation that it is in 2010.


"I think determining to change that would be a grave mistake," he said.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...grants_n_667098.html
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

So right Kocolicious. . . yes we are to be etherally suspended until we pop up on the scene at 18!!  To lobby to overturn the 14th Amendment??!!! Then THIS FOOL wouldn't be a citizen either! The odds are high that his people entered illegally. The only people who were allowed citizenship BEFORE the 14th Amendment were whites. By proposing this, it openly shows the racism again being put on display for the entire world to see by the so-called Right-Wing. Yet they will find a way to spin it as if they are being oppressed. . .  (insert rolleyes here)
Okay .... I know I'm prolly gonna catch hell for this ... ... but, as y'all know ... the subject of immigration is where I fall on the "Republican" side of my political spectrum!!

Of course, the thought of repealing the 14th Amendment is ludicrous .... however, I can't seem to find a direct quote that establishes that that is what this Senator actually said!! (Not that he didn't ... I just haven't found it yet!) However .... repealing the 14th Amendment and changing the birthright/citizenship laws are two different things.  And I support the latter wholeheartedly!!!

The only real problem I have is that it seems to me that the suggestion is about 25 years too late!!  That horse left the barn a generation-and-a-half ago ... and closing the barn door NOW is "late freight" thinking ... and makes very little sense, IMO.  They should have corrected that mistake looonngggg before now! 

I did find this piece of proposed legislation  from the article .... which is an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act .. and basically states that one or more parents of a child born in the U.S. needs to be a U.S. citizen!!!  And I have NO problem with that!!  That automatic "anchor baby" thing never did sit too well with me!  And is a major factor in the problem we're about to have right now ... with Hispanics about to become the majority minority in this country ... pushing us farther down the totem pole ... and possibly eroding our own political power, because once they get organized, they will be in a position to be the decision-makers!  And the fact that they don't care about us no more than White people do means that they will not necessarily be allies for us in the long run.

They, like White people, are in it for themselves .... and first and foremost look out for and take care of their own. And that's not us.  Sooooo ... the exact repercussions of that remain to be seen.

This whole immigration debate is so far-reaching and there are so many variables to it, it's hard to keep up!!  On the whole, though, I think I'm pretty much cool with the President's proposal for immigration reform ... all except the "path to citizenship" thing.  Until our borders are more open to African-descended people who ALSO want to come here "to make a better life" ... I don't think the fact that just because you've already been here (illegally) should automatically give someone the opportunity for citizenship.

I straddle the fence on several immigration proposals and ideas .... which I'll give my thoughts on later.  But ... as for this current suggestion to revise birthright and citizenship laws ... with the exception of actually "repealing the 14th Amendment" .... I'm wit it!!  100%!!
Reference:
"I think it's deplorable," he said. "It's an attempt to turn our back on 150 years of constitutional history and tradition. I think it's contrary to the values of this country. I think it's an assault on the recognition that ours is a country of immigrants and always has been.

The 14th Amendment is very clear: Anyone who is born here, unless you are the child of a diplomat, is a United States citizen. That has led to great success. It's part of what has made this nation the great nation that it is in 2010.



The 14th Amendment was enacted SPECIFICALLY for the benefit of African Americans .... whose ancestors were NOT immigrants ... but chained captives enslaved for the purpose of providing free labor.  There is an enormous difference between the two. 

Because White folks wouldn't acknowledge what was already true ... and in fact, present constitutional LAW - that Black people were already full and equal citizens of the United States - the 14th Amendment had to be included, to specifically direct White people to accept and acknowledge that particular fact as the law of the land.

It was NOT enacted so that other people down the line could come into the country illegally and then try to use it as a loophole and a twisted justification for being able to skirt the law and STAY here illegally!!

I would rather they just be honest about it and say, "Look ... you White people f*ked up when you decided to abuse the Constitution for your own personal gain and screw Black people out of their LEGAL right to be recognized as full and true citizens!!  Now we are going to use your f*k-up AGAINST you .... 'cause you shoulda done the right thing in the first place, and then we wouldn't even have this law to screw YOU with it, now!!"

But that other "patriotic" BS he's spouting above is just plain ol' insulting!   I'm tired of people bending us over to see who has the biggest pole to shove up our @zz!!
  But!  But!  But!  Sista ER....we ALL are anchor babies a few generations removed.  So  In retrospect kinda.....this anchor babies stipulation can include US in a round about way.  And for those who came here illegally during the 40s great migration across the waters[those nasty Europeans and Friends]....that could very well MEAN them too in terms of their great grand children.  So the real citizens again...are guess who?  You are correct!  The native American.  And what did massa do to them?  Well ....you will find a lot  of 'em still on reservations and a few launching casinos[finally]....but!  I'm just sayin
Kyl did not say that he wanted to do away with the 14th amendment.  He did, however, state that he wanted to get rid of the "citizen by birth" clause of the amendment.  But this is all a big head fake.  The number of "anchor babies" is negligable.


If we are going to deal with this immigration issue, we must come with some path to citizenship for the 12,000,000 undocumented workers already here.  The CATO Foundation [and I can't believe I agree with anything that this group promotes] has produced a study that institute a path to citizenship with a modest fines [$500], we could pay for all of the ancillary problems related to immigration, like securing the border.
Reference:
If we are going to deal with this immigration issue, we must come with some path to citizenship for the 12,000,000 undocumented workers already here.

Seriously, why do people say this?  Why MUST there be a "path to citizenship" for people who have broken the rules and cut in front of the line while people in other countries have to go through a hellacious process to get here?  Why not recruit from countries for applicants with degrees and training that may be helpful to society - im thinking Africans, Asians, Indians with economic, science, technology, medical education and training,


I've heard it said, that we need workers to support the baby-boomer generation as they retire and cause huge financial strain in the social security and medicare system BUT THERE ARE NO JOBS for citizens.  The unemployment rate is at an all time high - not to mention the AFricanAmerican employment situation.  How will millions more mostly unskilled laborers help the costly baby-boomer retirement situation in a market where there are 5 applicants for every job opening ?


or the economy in general?  The labor market will be flooded with millions more unskilled workers as jobs continue to be scarce.  Why MUST there be a path to this?


and i'm asking sincerely
Last edited by NSpirit
Oh back to the 14th amendment - imho it's the ethnic majority what with having been scared by the doomsday predictions  that they will be a minority within a generation - trying to preserve white control of the country .  Before you know it they'll have introduced an american apartheid bill and then have the fox news and talking heads on radio echo what a good idea it would be so that the bumpkins will clamor for it. 


Oddly i haven't seen predictions that they will actually be a MINORITY.  They just won't have over 50% of the population anymore.  So if they are 45% and blacks are 15-20% and Hispanics are somewhere around 30% of the population in the future...how are they a MINORITY?
Reference:
But! But! But! Sista ER....we ALL are anchor babies a few generations removed.  So In retrospect kinda.....this anchor babies stipulation can include US in a round about way.

Well ... no, not exactly, Ms. Koco!!  The "anchor baby" concept has generally been known to be more of a deliberate act ... an intentional decision to (try to) secure an excuse to be able to stay.

Our ancestors didn't get a choice ... there was never a conscious decision made whether or not to have children here - they did not get to choose whether or not to come here in the first place.  As you know, many of the (American) children born here to our slave ancestors were the result of human breeding ... so in a lot of cases even the choice to conceive at all was not optional.

In fact, the first generation of children born to the African slaves would have actually, technically been considered English subjects - legally - had they been deemed to be human beings, that is.  But alas, they were not!!  Even so, any and all African descendants born after July 4, 1776 were not "anchored" Americans.  In fact, I'll bet many would have GLADLY returned to our original homeland rather than to have continued to suffer the indignities of enslavement.
Reference:
Kyl did not say that he wanted to do away with the 14th amendment. He did, however, state that he wanted to get rid of the "citizen by birth" clause of the amendment. But this is all a big head fake. The number of "anchor babies" is negligable.

On the contrary. K4R ... the majority of Hispanics that helped vote President Obama into office  in the 2008 election were the products of the massive amounts of illegal immigrants that entered the country back in the 70s and early 80s.  Many of them were indeed "anchor babies" - now American citizens of voting age. 

They are now producing the second (and third) generations of American citizens.  But, even so, (and this is probably due to overexposure of the media) I've been seeing a lot of stories about Hispanic families that are made up of one legal and one illegal parent.
NS -- the main reason I've heard for interest in a "path to citizenship" is that there isn't much else that feasibly can be done, with the ones who are already here.  You really can't do much else with 12 million people.  You can't round up and deport 12 million people. 

As for this 14th Amendment issue, I can understand people's frustration about anchor babies.  I don't think most Americans are exactly aware of just how crippling this phenomenon is.  But on the other hand, I don't like seeing the Constitution being used as a tool for hatred.  In general, the trend with the Constitution is that Amendments are intended to EXPAND rights, not take them away.  When they start losing sight of that, it's just one more nail in this country's coffin, the way I see it.
Well ... no, not exactly, Ms. Koco!!  The "anchor baby" concept has generally been known to be more of a deliberate act ... an intentional decision to (try to) secure an excuse to be able to stay.


Okay, that sounds reasonable in the case of the slaves...but!  How about those immigrants who come over not through Isle Island but while visiting and deciding to stay and then had children to secure their decision?  What about those European/Asian sneaks?  They also had the hope of having a better life for their youngsters...so are they too in the same category with those who crossed the border illegally?  Cuz  if Asians and Europeans come here with the same intentions of [deliberately] having children [as an excuse] to stay in America....their butts need to be gone too.  I mean that's my thinking. It's NOT just the Latinos who are here illegally....there's a whole lot more of other folks too...but!  America seems to be specifically focused on Hispanics and to me that's racial profiling.  Am I wrong?

 
Our ancestors didn't get a choice ... there was never a conscious decision made whether or not to have children here - they did not get to choose whether or not to come here in the first place.  As you know, many of the (American) children born here to our slave ancestors were the result of human breeding ... so in a lot of cases even the choice to conceive at all was not optional.


Good point my sista!  There were no conscious decision to have children born here by slaves....in fact many slave women killed their babies so that they[the babies] would not be born into slavery. But the 14th amendment wasn't written in our favor either.   I don't think massa was even thinking about "us".  So there's some sort of bias in that in my opinion.  But to be fair I haven't really read any of that stuff since my political science and history days.....kinda made my eyes crossed in class....but! I'm just sayin
Reference:
Okay, that sounds reasonable in the case of the slaves...but! How about those immigrants who come over not through Isle Island but while visiting and deciding to stay and then had children to secure their decision? What about those European/Asian sneaks? They also had the hope of having a better life for their youngsters...so are they too in the same category with those who crossed the border illegally? Cuz if Asians and Europeans come here with the same intentions of [deliberately] having children [as an excuse] to stay in America....their butts need to be gone too. I mean that's my thinking. It's NOT just the Latinos who are here illegally....there's a whole lot more of other folks too...but! America seems to be specifically focused on Hispanics and to me that's racial profiling. Am I wrong?


Nope!  You're not wrong!  You are absolutely RIGHT!! 

As far as I'm concerned ... an illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant ... no matter what  shape, form or fashion they come in!!    And there's no difference between an Asian 'anchor' or a Hispanic one!  Same same.  And everyone who falls under that same definition should be treated the same way, IMO!!

Now .... the reason that Hispanics are focused on so much more than any other group is because, #1, there's soooooo many more of them (having sooooo many more babies! ); and #2, it's so ridiculously easy for them to get here .... they pour over the border, sometimes 50-100 at a time ... there's virtually no way to stop it from happening and their numbers building up so rapidly .... that it's just like a constant flow.

By the same token, while a lot of Asians and Europeans are doing the same thing by coming here and then overstaying their visas .... there are only so many of them 'let in' on those visas at a time!!  And most of those DO actually leave when they're supposed to.  Yet a few (and that 'few' could be in the thousands - where we're talking about millions of Hispanics!) get over here and actually stay!

There was a report a couple of months ago where the Coast Guard stopped 2 boatloads of Asians trying to float in from the Pacific Ocean.  And, as we know, any Black Cubans or Haitians also have to try to get in here by floating in on boats!!  Africans would be coming from so far away they probably couldn't survive a boat ride to get here.  But would also be turned away.  However ... Hispanics .... can just walk ... make that run .. right on over.  And they do.  Which is how/why their (illegal) numbers dwarf those of any other race or group.  It's just the ease of being able to do it.  And they take full advantage of that 'convenience'.

And that is why I just can't get with this "it's racial profiling" aspect of this debate.  It's not a matter of "pick-and-choose" dynamics ... it's a matter of mathematics!!    If you put 10 illegal immigrants in a room ... the (rough) demographic breakdown would look something like:  6 Hispanics, 2 Whites, an Asian and a Black person.  So if you're someone tasked with going out and finding more illegal immigrants ... how can the majority of the people you're looking for NOT be Hispanic?? 

I mean, it a simple matter of numbers and percentages.  Not a witch hunt.  A witch hunt would be to ignore all Hispanic-looking people and only pursue Black/African people looking for that 1-out-of-10 to be your "catch."    Which is not too far-fetched and I'm a little surprised that's not happening .. given our history.  But the sheer numbers dictate that wouldn't be feasible ... if, indeed, the idea is to identify those who are in the country illegally.
  Okay...my sista.  I got it now.  And I guess it would depend on where you are in terms of illegal immigrants....being closer to the border more have a chance of getting in [by walking/running as you indicated] than those who come in by boat.  Make sense.  So I guess that is probably why Texas and Cali are so flooded with 'em. Ummmm interesting.  Very interesting....but!  I'm just sayin
My $.02......................
I thought the constitution was a flawless, perfect document that was the model for other countries in the world to model themselves after.
I find it interesting that same same boobs, dorks and idiots that are crying and claiming that the POTUS is trampling the constitution now think this is a good ideal.
@kwel
Reference:
Kyl did not say that he wanted to do away with the 14th amendment. He did, however, state that he wanted to get rid of the "citizen by birth" clause of the amendment.

Please dont tell me no one else sees this repeating plead?
Does this not sound similar to:

Rand Paul's questioning of the civil rights act of the 60's
Or apparently changing the criteria for being the President(being born here)
Or the presidents policies favoring minorities
Health care reform bill being a  form of reparations for blacks
Or Glenn Beck's (officially the new face of the race card ) cries of racism
Or...i don't no..you all can add something if you like..

my point is one thing remains certain ..these white people see any form of not-white governing as a threat to their world as they know it and now they want to rewrite history to appeal to them?
...NO white people! NO!
for the first time in America..the answer is NO! You cant "have it your way" like burger king.It was well over due if you ask me...
Reference:
NS -- the main reason I've heard for interest in a "path to citizenship" is that there isn't much else that feasibly can be done, with the ones who are already here. You really can't do much else with 12 million people. You can't round up and deport 12 million people.

I don't see why there can't be some type of agreement/arrangement wherein some or most of the non-criminal, hard-working, been-here-for-years/have established a family-type illegal immigrants already here can't be granted some type of legal residency or work-permit status ... without there being an issue regarding a "path to citizenship" attached to it.

Not all of the 'Hispanics' here are Mexican.  They come from ALL OVER South America ... and not all of them are good people.    Just weeding out the criminals (deporting them on the spot) could make a dent in things!  But ... I don't see being 'rewarded' with American citizenship just because you're here already) after you've broken the law to be able to be here in the first place! 

And actually ... that very issue is one of the major and most intriguing issues for me of this whole entire immigration debate - just what and/or how much should an American citizen (and, by contrast, a non-citizen)  be entitled to by virtue of being able to claim citizenship ... or not?    I mean ...what bang are we really supposed to get for our (American) buck??  What distinguishes (or should) us or legal residents from those here illegally?

Although it's generally widely said and accepted as such .... the reality is that very few things - even the right to vote, in fact - are not guaranteed citizens' rights or privileges decreed by the Constitution for us as citizens.  Things like a good education for our children and health care for all are said to be basic rights/privileges that all Americans are entitled to.  But we're also giving those things away to any- and everybody else who happens to be here.

And my problem with that is that until ALL American citizens are being taken care of with these so-called "basic" rights and privileges , I don't think it's fair to take resources that could be used to accomplish that and spend it funding those that are not legally entitled to it.  But ..  the larger question is ... what do you do with 12 million non-citizens???  What kinds of steps could (or should) be taken to educate their children or provide them health care without sending them back to their countries of origin to do so .. where they are probably likewise "entitled" by virtue of their citizenship?  And what good is there in being able to claim 'American" citizenship if there's nothing that distinguishes us from non-citizens??  And illegal ones at that?? 

I know this will probably sound heartless (but, actually, I really do feel for those people that have put themselves in the heartbreaking position of the possibly of having to break up their families because of being caught being here illegally) but ... I feel that there are far too many other (specifically African-descended) immigrant hopefuls (and others such as refugees and asylum-seekers) that deserve to be here ... deserve to have an opportunity to live the 'American dream' ... after years of waiting and going through the proper channels (but victimized by our inept immigration policy!). 

To simply give an edge/preferential treatment to such a large population of people simply because they were lucky enough to live 'next door', decided to enter the country illegally, and didn't get caught coming through .. that just doesn't seem right.  It doesn't sit well with me at all. 

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×