On the Brink of the Birthright Battle

MoonHowler

The next chapter of the immigration battle is over the birthright of those babies born to illegal immigrants in the United States.  For starters, we dislike the expression ‘anchor baby’ to be derogatory.  It implies an intent that simply might not be there. 

The first volleys lobbed in the birthright battle might be coming from Arizona.  According to the New York Times:

Arizona — whose tough law granting the police the power to detain illegal immigrants is tied up in the courts — may again take the lead in what is essentially an effort to redefine what it means to be an American. This time, though, Arizona lawmakers intend to join with legislators from several other states to force the issue before the Supreme Court.

This coalition of lawmakers will unveil its exact plans on Wednesday in Washington, but people involved in drafting the legislation say they have decided against the painstaking process of amending the Constitution. Since the federal government decides who is to be deemed a citizen, the lawmakers are considering instead a move to create two kinds of birth certificates in their states, one for the children of citizens and another for the children of illegal immigrants.

The theory is that this could spark a flurry of lawsuits that might resolve the legal conflict in their favor.

“This is not a far-out, extremist position,” said John Kavanagh, one of the Arizona legislators who is leading an effort that has been called just that. “Only a handful of countries in the world grant citizenship based on the GPS location of the birth.”

Read More

Born in the U.S.A. –Dump the 14th!

MoonHowler

Jon Stewart takes a long look at America’s political issues with illegal immigrants.  He analyzes the dreaded ‘anchor babies’ and wonders how illegal immigrants could plan ahead 18 years as he takes a look at the 14th amendment to see what had been said about it in 1866, where citizens worried about the dreaded’ Hottentot.’  Lindsay Graham discusses the Drop and Leave policy of illegal immigrants.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Born in the U.S.A.
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

 

 Jon brought in Lou Dobbs as a voice of reason. 

Lou Dobbs who has spent much of his life discussing illegal immigration, weighed in on the topic and warned that the GOP was overstepping by proposing that the 14th amendment be repealed.  

Even Lou Dobbs isn’t on board with proposed constitutional amendment ending birthright citizenship, Watch him defend the 14th Amendment:

According to the Huffington Post:

The growing chorus of Senate Republicans urging repeal of the 14th Amendment as a means of denying citizenship to the children of immigrants received a rebuke Tuesday from, of all people, notorious immigration foe Lou Dobbs.

Appearing on Fox News, the former CNN host defended the constitutional amendment which provides birthright citizenship.

“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. “It lays the foundation for the entire Bill of Rights being applied to the states.”

That even Dobbs opposes the GOP push to repeal the 14th Amendment is a measure of just how radical the effort is. Some Republicans who signaled their support for the move as recently as Monday, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have already backtracked from their earlier support for broad review of the law.

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee wasn’t one of them. “The Constitution is not as clear as it first appears,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.) told reporters Tuesday. “I continue to hear good Americans explain to me they think it makes no sense

Those men who drew up the 14 Amendment in 1866 had the following concerns:

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people “born or naturalized in the United States” for a reason. They wished to directly repudiate the Dred Scott decision, which said that citizenship could be granted or denied by political caprice. They purposely chose an objective standard of citizenship — birth — that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction leaders established a firm, sound principle: To be an American citizen, you don’t have to please a majority, you just have to be born here

Political caprice?  When Lou Dobbs thinks ideas are over the top, they probably are. I am still stuck on the idea that others now why a couple has children. I am willing to bet it isn’t so the child can sponsor them 29 years down the road. That reasoning is just far too complex.

.