Amending the 14th Amendment: Culture of hate?
Well if you listen to the left, it’s because you would be a racist. This post gives the precise reason for amending the 14th amendment to the US Constitution and the left’s crazy, lunatic response. Once again raaaaaaaaacist.
Lindsey Graham brought it up a week ago and this first clip explains why, given the problems the country has had in controlling illegal immigration, one of the things he would like to ensure is that there will not be another wave of illegals entering country. As Graham states, as long as there is an incentive to come into this country illegally, as in anchor babies, people will keep coming. Amending the 14th Amendment thus would be part of immigration reform, says the man who first invented “shamnesty”, and, it actually makes sense. If you already are on top of Graham’s position, you can skip to video two and three which are very short.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xDg327Nkw8
The left of course, is hysterical. Those who think this idea has merit, based on Graham’s groundwork, are raaaacists. I really hesitate putting up two Matthews videos in one day for fear your heads will explode (interesting a listener let me know that is now Beck’s favorite phrase. Guess his people listen to the show.). Matthews wonders how it could be enforced … ya know, because nobody really knows who the father is of those Hispanic babies anyway. Stay with it right though its Heidi Klum ending.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acEVb9U7WxU
But for the hard core intellectual lefities, that’s just too tame. Fer sher, those righty folks behind this are part of the “culture of hate in America? So says Brit Gillian Tett
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx_1V1eBwTE
None of what Graham says is unreasonable much less hateful. You want to take care of the 14 million illegals, fine says Graham, but its not open borders. No more waves. This is it. Tett clearly thinks we should destroy our sovereignty the way Britain’s political correctness cost them there’s.
27 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
Where did Gillian Tett get the idea that anyone here in the U.S. gives a flying foo-poo what she thinks about what she deems our "culture of hate" and "scapegoating"?
Everybody is a critic…And Matthews just comes across as a royal, racist sexist pig. But that's just my pbr swillin' opinion.
Jim, again…please? My head has exploded at least 5 times today! I can't take it anymore!
When you play "Chris Matthews roulette", all the chambers are full!
Dims, super…I don't know if I can handle another round of CM Roulette…
In ref. to CM and his ridiculous comparisons? A person who aims at nothing is sure to hit it.
Ms Tett needs to become a citizen before she critcizes our culture. She should stick to financial reporting.
Oh yeah. How is "tolerance" working out for the Brits? There are now parts of the country where sharia law is in effect (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1055764/Islamic-sharia-courts-Britain-legally-binding.html)
I wonder how she will look in a burkha?
I think this was a "Tett offensive"! 😉
Or is it "offensive Tett"?
Well, so much for being "strict constitutionalists"
What about the part that says, "…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?" If the kids are born of illegal immigrants, are they under the jurisdiction of the United States? I don't think so. And this still allows for strict interpretation.
That was a kind of pointless comment, given the Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments. Strictly speaking, the 14th was, in fact, an amendment to the Constitution.
Depends what philosophy you want to hang on "strict constitutionalist". Would you mean (a) "strict pre-Bill of Rights", (b) "strict read anything you want into the 13th and 14th Amendments", or (c) "read the 14th Amendment as it was intended at the time of its ratification"?
If you go with (c), this current proposal to clarify the 14th makes perfect sense. I will remind you that the 14th Amendment was ratified to clarify and protect the purposes of the 13th, which granted freedom to all slaves. The 14th Amendment made sure that freed slaves were full citizens of the "… United States and of the State wherein they reside." It also granted citizens of the United States full due process of law and equal protection under law.
If you go with (b), I will remind you that many things have changed since 1868. Nobody looked into a crystal ball for the unintended consequences of the 14th's wording, which is to allow a wide-open anchor baby policy, with all its detrimental effects in a modern world of high mobility and a movement towards socialistic internal (US) policies.
(a) isn't even a choice, in my view. It would require regressing to the 3/5ths rule set forth in Article I, Section 2; which is grossly incongruous with modern practice (not to mention justice and other things).
This argument is all about two principles of law: "jus soli" (citizenship by dint of being born within national territory) or "jus sanguinis" (citizenship by dint of either parent's citizenship). Jus soli implies that you are a developed nation that wishes to increase its population. Jus sanguinis implies otherwise. The numbers of jus soli nations are declining, the number of jus soli nations that have restricted the doctrine are growing, and few (if any) jus sanguinis nations are relinquishing that level of control. And that's what it's about: control.
As abused as jus soli is today, it is my opinion that we should modify to adopt strict jus sanguinis. IMO, the days of our need for population expansion are over; and the issue of freed slaves has passed into history. We have no obligation to adopt the impoverished of the world, nor do I believe we have the economic resources to do so.
Sorry, I hit the wrong reply button … should have gone one up.
Wolf Blitzer is a sh*t head! There are people all'round the world who will try every trick in the book to pop a baby out on US soil. And I guarantee all of you that even a doped-up hippy mom would come to her senses after popping out a young Barry, I mean baby, in a 1961 Mombasa Kenya hospital- with Gecko lizards climbing the ceilings of the "operating theatre", hospital orderlies washing blood and human tissues out the doors of the O.R. and into the grass where chickens eat human flesh, where burn wards are filled disfigured patients, where life is cheaper than you could ever imagine unless you're the guy selling caskets across the street from the hospital. Katie Couric should go get a televised colonoscopy in Barry's homeland before anyone in the media tells us that American Exceptionalism is dead; it's not dead- it's on life support, Barry's standing on the oxygen hose, and we're one more stimulus away from 100 years of a suffering that no trust fund bohemian could ever imagine.
This Heidi Klum analogy is unprofessional and should be the end of Chris Matthews! He should just go punch his clown and leave the speculation to the men among us who've got better taste! Millions of Heidi Klums coming across the border, closing down hospitals, demanding we speak her German tongue, subsidizing healthcare for millions of H-Klums and their social diseases and pregnancies every time we see a doctor for anything, millions of drunk H-Klums speeding around our poorly engineered highways while they kill countless Americans… Hardly a turn on for me Chris Matthews- but then I'm not paid 5 mils a year for verbal flatulence! Bend over Chris Matthews- you're the lesser of two evils!
Sorry, Jim. It's not that my head will explode, I have a strong stomach and never get seasick, but my stomach can just not take Blitzer, Matthews, and Klum all in one post. I could only take the first video and got weak, my eyes bulged and my stomach lurched. Have pity!
I think Chris Matthews does represent a "culture of hate."
The notion of "amending" the 14th Amendment to "fix" an immigration issue is absurd. First it will take forever to propose it and having it ratified by the states. The issue of having illegals come in (gaming the system) is tied to employers hiring illegals (gaming the system). Unless both are fixed together, this will go on and on (ask the Europeans).
You are absolutely correct: both the cheap labor and cheap vote issues need to be taken out of the debate. No amnesty and no hiring. I suggest $10K /day/ illegal for starters. Between the two, we can pull the rug out from under the problem.
Then fix the 14th amendment anyway. Yeah, it will take forever, which is another reason to get started now. Vote out the illegal coddlers. The public is already behind efforts to remove illegals and clean up this mess, and that is half the battle.
Amending the 14th ammendment? My gosh, another thing for Conservatives and Liberals to bludgeon each other over. I agree it's something to look at, but not for a quick fix of the immigration problem, and certainly not when the political climate is overheated. I like to think back to the good old days of 2007 when Bush backed a comprehensive immigration reform bill, written by Senators Kennedy, Kyl, and McCain: and supported by Majority Leader Harry Reid. Those werre the days when we could all get along. Unfortunately the bill died in the Senate, because not enough senators could accept the bill's inevitable imperfections. 2007 was also the year Arizona enacted a law requiring employers to verify the legal status of potential employees. Contractors, farmers and hotel owners were up in arms, arguing the bill was unconstitutional because only the Fed Gov can make immigration law. Sound familiar?
I don't think we have to amend the 14th Amendment. Ann Coulter explains in a great column
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38409
that the author of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "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."
It wasn't until 1982 (!) that Justice Brennan writes in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." "Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not," Ann adds. Brennan gives no credible source or rational reason for this footnote.
We don't need another amendment. We just need a new, rational footnote (after the congress changes the current insane "any baby born on our soil is a citizen" policy).
People are willing to go to extremes to come to "the greatest country on earth" for one reason
The Constitution.
It doesn't need to be changed, it needs to be respected.
Time has proven the Constitution's success when people set the goal to live up to its high standards.
To any American wanna-be, find the closest INS office and respectfully join the rest of us immigrant/immigrant descendants. For in that is equality, otherwise business will treat you like slave labor.
To Ms. Tett – This is not about hate, it is about respect for our fellow human beings and the Constitution.
Hear, hear! Well spoken!
Right Pat: The 14th Amendment chatter is a distraction from the real business of immigration and guest worker reform. Can we go back to 2007 when a bipartisan effort in the Senate nearly passed an immigration reform? I doubt it, until one or both parties stops the nonsense.
PatRiot…"The Constitution. It doesn’t need to be changed, it needs to be respected." Love it…well said!! What's the point in having laws if no one is going to follow or enforce them?
As to the original post and other posts:
1)I'm not a republican, nor am I a racist. My problem w/ illegal immigration…"illegal"…"forbidden by law, unlawful, unauthorized or prohibited by a code of official or accepted rules." You want to come to our country…come legally like millions before you!!
2)Heidi Klum? Dang…now I'm going to have to go back and watch the CM video.
3)Watched it…CM…there are just no kind words to say about this man.
This wouldn't be much of an issue if immigrant labor wasn't such a valued commodity. Countless employers violate the law when they hire illegals. And becasue it saves a couple bucks, probably no average citizen stops to think about who is cleaning their offices, working in the yard, or on construction sites. And nobody has ever asked for proof that the food they eat, whether at a restaurant or from a supermarket hasn't been prepared or picked by illegals. Maybe Arizona and every other state should enforce its labor laws, we should stop looking the other way re. illegal labor in our communities and the darn Republicans and Democrats ought to call a truce.
To PatRiot: The Constitution is not the only reason people come to this country. I used to volunteer at a Crisis Pregnancy Center in Southern California. I know some Spanish, so would translate for the counselors. I'll never forget the young woman who told me that she had come to our country only two weeks ago and that her friend had told her "Go to this place and they will help you get money for your baby." She was not the only woman either who indicated she had recently come to our country purely to get government money and have her baby.
A number of counselors stopped volunteering when they saw how scarce resources, intended to offer other options to local women considering abortion, were actually being diverted to and even attracting illegals.
I also was working in a local hospital maternity department when California voted on the Proposition to cut off state welfare funds to illegals. The head nurse commented that if it passed, they would likely go out of business.
No, the Constitution isn't the only reason people come to this country. We need to end the irrational, and nationally suicidal immigration policies,
I don't think the 14th should be repealed or amended. At the time; it served it's purpose, and that purpose is clear today, and no longer is relivent to todays issues. The supreme court should address, with the purpose of overturning "Bad Law" the case laws pertaining to the 14th, and repeal those bad decisions that led to the mess we are in today. The same should be said about "case law decisions" pertaining to the commerce clause that go far beyond the scope of what it was meant to accomplish.
It is really too bad that no one here has the intellect to read anything beyond the like of Ann Coulter, or Jim Vicevich (who had been described to me by employees of the station as one of the most conceited and arrogant employees there, which is really too bad, since if you are going to be arrogant you should have something to back it up) you would know that this issue has long been decided. To wit:
This particular issue was settled in United States vs Wong Kim Ark U.S. 649, 1898. In a 6 to 2 ruling the court ruled that a child born the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens AND who are subjects of a foreign power (i.e. not subject to U.S. jurisdiction) AND have permanent domicile in the United States (i.e. they live here full time) AND they work in the United States AND are not working in any diplomatic or officially sanctioned capacity for a foreign country, AND who are not part of a foreign army occupying the United States, is automatically a citizen of the United States based on not only the language in the 14th Amendment but also under English Common Law which the United States and prior to the existence of the United States the individual colonies, had used to determine citizenship status.
The ruling has been revisited numerous times and upheld including in Perkins v Elg, 1939 and Afroyim v Rusk, 1967. This precedent was also cited in Plyler v Doe, 1982 a case which Ann Coulter, because of her brain damage, existing mental defects, or the effects of venereal disease has made famous by lying, distorting, and misquoting.
In any case, the truth is that those pushing this idea simply don't like people with back or brown skin.
<a title="Afroyim v. Rusk" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk" rel="nofollow">