Posted on 08/13/2010 7:22:18 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
The Republican U.S. Senate nominee says she's tough on illegal immigration but draws the line on altering the amendment, which grants citizenship to all people born in the United States.
BY MAEVE RESTON
Republican U.S. Senate nominee Carly Fiorina said Thursday that she opposes calls from some conservatives to alter the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all people born in the United States.
Fiorina sought to appeal to conservative voters on immigration issues during her party's primary this spring, strongly backing Arizona's tough new law on illegal immigration, for example. But she drew the line Thursday at the question of denying birthright citizenship — an issue that could be highly controversial among the state's large number of Latino voters.
"I don't think that's a useful dialogue — I don't support changing the 14th Amendment," Fiorina told reporters after speaking to a convention of California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in downtown Los Angeles. "I think what we need to do is have the federal government do its job and secure the border and have a temporary worker program that works. And all the rest of it is a distraction and, unfortunately, an emotional distraction."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Lemme think about that one.
OK, I'm done. I'll vote for Fiorina.
Hey, let’s all stay home and not vote for the RINO because that worked so well in 2006 and 2008.
Why can’t we say “I am voting for her, but.....”. I think that is fair. She does not stand with some of our issues. The one’s that she does not stand with us can be discussed can’t they? Just because we yell out RINO does not mean she won’t get the vote of people on FR. I would rather discuss the faults of the candidates regardless of the party...FREEPERS are going to vote for her. We are just not jumping up and down over it.
Thank you MaggieCarta. I didn’t see your comment. Look, on the face of it, her comments seem rather decent. I just think you need to dig deeper when someone has known connections to you know who. It has to change your whole perspective knowing what you do about him, and what someone has to believe in to be his bud.
“There’s no need to alter the 14th. Just stop mis-interpreting it.”
The modification or repeal of the 14th will be too incendiary for most politicians to address in our lifetime. Race baiters will have a field day and those politicians proposing mods/repeal will head for the bunkers. It has as much chance of occurring as the elimination of it because it was not Constitutionally ratified. Securing the borders is paramount.
The path outlined by the “jurisdiction” bit and by:
{Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article} is a rocky one subject to judicial review, assuming there were enough leaders with the nads to pass it and the ability to override a certain veto.
How do you think a liberal legislator from the bench would treat this part of Sec. 1:”..nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Note, that it says “person” not citizen like some of the other parts of Sec. 1. Armchair judging is not the real thing. We’re all mostly in agreement regarding “citizenship” for wets and the anchor baby situation but getting there is another story.
Exactly!
Fiorina won’t beat Box of Roxer. W.F. Buckley once said “ If the people have the choice of voting for a liberal Democrat, or a Republican who is really a Democrat, the Democrat will usually win”
Exactamundo!
The wimp politicians need to move on this issue and enact legislation clarifying the fact that illegal aliens born in the US are NOT conferred US citizenship.
Note that the first line of the article almost certainly intentionally does not include the “jurisdiction” clause you mentioned. Probably to make it sound like the only way to avoid the anchor-baby phenomenon is to amend the Constitution.
Agreed. Which is why, if one were truly serious about advancing the debate with regard to Conservative principles, one should have endorsed DeVore. But, hey, that's just me...
” one should have endorsed DeVore. But, hey, that’s just me... “
You, me and D1
There you have it, the McCain presidential bid in a nutshell.
Why would you vote for a pretender, when you can have a full blown genuine article instead?
Reaching out, is the only sure fire way I know of to get your arm chopped off.
If you want your product to catch on, it can’t be identical to another. It has to be able to be defined as an opposite to some degree, providing something better, more desirable.
What was more desirable about voting for Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Vietnam’s friend and co-conspirator, than voting for Barack Obama?
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
Yep, that’s right.
Yes, I forgot that. Thanks!
...take that to the bank!
Buckley, was wrong. In a real sense a Democrat would win 100% of the time under those conditions. Just a little different way of looking at it. Of course I’m just addressing the Ls vs the Cs again.
If they would enforce immigration law this wouldn’t be an issue.
No need to amend. Simply interpret accurately.
“Fiorina should go change her hairdo. Sounds like it might better match her skill IQ.”
She is a breast cancer survivor, she lost her hair due to chemotherapy and it is just growing back.
It shows your incredibly high IQ that you seem to prefer Boxer because she has more hair and you think she she has higher IQ and skills.
Pathetic.
Ping...
” Buckley, was wrong. In a real sense a Democrat would win 100% of the time under those conditions “
Well, not as much on the east coast. I grew up there. Remember Lowell Weicker?
How about “pin up boy” in Massachusetts winning Kennedy’s seat?(forgot his name already ;-) ) He is a RINO.
But other than the east coast, it would indeed be close to 100%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.