Repealing the 14th Amendment....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 11:41 AM GMT
    I ran across in the news the other day that Republicans want to repeal the 14th Amendment so that babys born on US soil of illegal immigrants will no longer automatically be citizens, and now with the ruling in regards to gay marriage in California citing the 14th I wondered if they knew that and are trying to kill two birds ( Gay Marriage AND Immigration ) with one stone.

    Thoughts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 10:16 PM GMT
    anyone else?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 10:41 PM GMT
    It will never pass...Period.

    It requires too many hoops 2/3 congress...president...2/3's state legislatures...etc. Plus it is a dumb idea.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2010 3:33 AM GMT
    A constitutional change requires the ratification by the citizens of America. The 14th amendment does not need to be repealed, but it could be amended on the immigration issue. But a little known fact is that although babies born on American soil are automatic citizens(we are the only country that does this), but they do not have the right to "sponsor" anyone to get in the country until they are 18. So yeah, the kids can be sent out with the parents.
  • Riahtherockst...

    Posts: 107

    Aug 06, 2010 3:36 AM GMT
    EMSman saidIt will never pass...Period.

    It requires too many hoops 2/3 congress...president...2/3's state legislatures...etc. Plus it is a dumb idea.


    True story... and I mean come on... it is on Fox News.... icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2010 3:40 AM GMT
    Those goddamn Canadians with their anchor babies. Goddamn it!

    I feel as though my hair is on fire! Surely we can rush this amendment; the number of Canadians ruining our country is exponentially increasing at too fast a rate. Soon our streets will be running thick with politeness and apologies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2010 3:48 AM GMT
    You would never be able to repeal the 14th amendement or even rewrite it. due process and equal protection are too important to too many people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2010 3:56 AM GMT
    I had no idea two conservatives could fight over such ridiculous different issues that hardly even overlap like that! Surely they can be enticed to destroy each other.
  • Riahtherockst...

    Posts: 107

    Aug 06, 2010 4:03 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio saidThose goddamn Canadians with their anchor babies. Goddamn it!

    I feel as though my hair is on fire! Surely we can rush this amendment; the number of Canadians ruining our country is exponentially increasing at too fast a rate. Soon our streets will be running thick with politeness and apologies.


    Reminds me of that website: godhatescanada.com haha
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Aug 06, 2010 4:14 AM GMT
    You need 2/3 of state legislature or 2/3 both houses of Congress to merely proposing to amend
    Then 3/4 of state legislature or 3/4 or state conventions must ratify the amended part by Congress..
    The Equal Rights Amendment failed. This one ain't gonna work out either.
    Remember, this is summer vacation time.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Aug 06, 2010 4:24 AM GMT
    Personally, I think it's a valid idea. I don't think it should be retroactive, but this business of people coming here just to have their babies so said babies can be American citizens and start draining the system from Day 1 is becoming more and more of a serious problem. If the parents are citizens of another country, their babies should be citizens of the same country. Why is that so unfair?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2010 4:36 AM GMT
    Perhaps this would make an iota of sense if America had a native ethnicity, like say Germany, or China. America does not, it has traditionally being an immigrant nation, and the very identity of being American is being born in America, or naturalizing, not that there is in existence an American identity. So eliminating the born in America means American clause of the 14th amendment would be illogical as to the means in which this nation operates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2010 4:41 AM GMT
    To me that is nothing more than commion sense. If you are in a country illegally, not just America, why should you be rewarded with the protection of your child. They should come under your status, legal, illegal, of their parents. If you are born of illegal aliens, then you behold the same status, put the onus on your parents and not the county.

    We have had criminals come to my country Oz, illegally, and the first things they do is produce a child, to use as a card to prevent them from being deported. That is wrong, and they should not be able to use the child as a trump card in that way.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Aug 06, 2010 4:52 AM GMT
    Suecer4 saidPerhaps this would make an iota of sense if America had a native ethnicity, like say Germany, or China. America does not, it has traditionally being an immigrant nation, and the very identity of being American is being born in America, or naturalizing, not that there is in existence an American identity. So eliminating the born in America means American clause of the 14th amendment would be illogical as to the means in which this nation operates.


    No one is saying immigrants can't come here. They are welcome to come here, always have been -- as long as they do it legally. It's unfair to all Americans when someone comes here "specifically" to have a baby. The 14th amendment was wonderful in its time, but it's time may have passed for it to make sense for the U.S. --- especially in the 21st Century.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2010 4:56 AM GMT
    It's an awful idea proposed by angry jerks. It has no chance of happening, and they are well aware of that. It's an election year, so the hated group of the season is thrown into the fire accompanied with empty promises of "solving" imaginary problems. Pure contemporary American politics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2010 7:50 AM GMT
    Would arch-conservatives really want to repeal the 14th Amendment, upon which the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms has been recently protected against state and local prohibitions?

    See: McDonald vs. City of Chicago 561 U.S. __ (2010)
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
  • NursePractiti...

    Posts: 232

    Aug 07, 2010 8:05 AM GMT
    All these people who are worried about, "illegal Immigrants', might want to remember that American Indians have been fighting it since 1492.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2010 8:12 AM GMT
    the 14th amendment .. because racism is a bad thing .. see the rest of the article ..
    http://www.pbs.org/becomingamerican/ce_witness17.htmlFor 19th century Chinese Americans who were denied the vote and therefore access to political redress of wrongs, the courts seemed like the only venue for justice. In case after case, they fought discrimination. Many cases were based on the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that all persons, not only citizens, enjoy the equal protection of the law. In the late 1800's, the most important victory was won in the case of Wong Kim Ark. Frank H. Wu, a professor of law at Howard University, writes of that 1898 case in Born in the USA:
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2010 8:25 AM GMT
    I dont believe there are too many countries that give citizenship automatically when you are born there... I thought it was actually quite rare

    The only ones I know for sure are US and France
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2010 8:32 AM GMT
    Thoughts? Its still about racism and until America can address it w/o knee jerk reactions like this its still gonna be a problem. Im Native Hawaiian and for me to wait for the "immigrants" to leave is unrealistic SO what other choice do I have other than like most native people of this country, marry 'em, have kids w/'em, teach 'em native ways so they can live off of this land and remind 'em....we were here long before this became the USA...well be here long after.

    Geez "old immigrants" trying to tell "new immigrants" you don't belong...kind of hypocritical don't you think?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2010 8:34 AM GMT
    amar_m saidI dont believe there are too many countries that give citizenship automatically when you are born there... I thought it was actually quite rare

    The only ones I know for sure are US and France
    It has been said that it is especially because this is a nation created from immigration. Also because the history in this country of racial inequality (as the courts have reasoned many times in using the 14th amendment).

    Many conservatives in this country are fearful of losing their racial majority as has been predicted. Fearfulness of change is the basis of some conservatism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2010 8:39 AM GMT
    smthbear808 saidGeez "old immigrants" trying to tell "new immigrants" you don't belong...kind of hypocritical don't you think?
    hee hee
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2010 8:58 AM GMT
    The amendment was created around the time of the Civil War to protect children of slaves. Today, the US is the only country that provides citizenship for babies of foreigners not in the country legally. It makes no sense to keep this in place.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2010 9:17 AM GMT
    14th amendment not just about slavery ..
    http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/08/birthright-citizenship-historyAll the talk from Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz), and even John McCain about changing the 14th Amendment got me thinking about history. Arizona state senator Russell Pearce has said that, "When it was ratified in 1868, the amendment had to do with African-Americans; it had nothing to do with aliens." Sen. Pearce is in need of a history lesson because as Media Matters points out, the writers of the 14th DID think about immigrants, not just former slaves, when they crafted it.

    Back in 1868, there wasn't the distinction between legal/illegal that we have now—we pretty much let almost everyone in until the late 1800s—but there was debate about the possible misuse of the law by immigrants. As one Pennsylvania senator at the time said, "[I]s it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese?" A California senator countered the gentleman from Pennsylvania with: "We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this [14th] constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with with others."

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201007310005
  • NursePractiti...

    Posts: 232

    Aug 07, 2010 10:39 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe amendment was created around the time of the Civil War to protect children of slaves. Today, the US is the only country that provides citizenship for babies of foreigners not in the country legally. It makes no sense to keep this in place.


    I'm assuming your not American Indian. That would make you the baby of some foreigner here illegally at some point wouldn't it?