Posted on 08/13/2010 10:51:30 AM PDT by jazusamo
Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano on Friday rejected Republican calls to amend the Constitution to prevent children of illegal immigrants from gaining citizenship.
“Any talk of amending the Constitution is just wrong,” Napolitano said in comments at the daily White House press briefing.
Some Republicans have suggested the 14th Amendment should be changed to prevent the natural born children of illegal immigrants from obtaining citizenship. The amendment was approved after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for freed slaves, especially in the South.
Critics argue that illegal immigrants come to the U.S. for the express purpose of winning citizenship for babies born in the U.S.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted Republicans for suggesting a closer examination and possible change to the equal protection amendment, noting the irony of a party dedicated to strict constructionists talking about tinkering with the Constitution.
“It's rich in its irony; it's wrong in its approach,” Gibbs said.
Napolitano also hit the GOP for not joining the Obama administration in calling for comprehensive immigration reform, which would include a pathway to citizenship for the country’s illegal immigrants.
Napolitano is the former governor of Arizona, the frontline in today’s immigration debate. The federal government successfully sued Arizona over its controversial immigration law, which would give new powers to local police to crack down on illegal immigrants.
The Homeland Security secretary boasted that the $600 million bill President Obama signed Friday for border security is a step in the right direction, but comprehensive reform will only be possible when “Republicans finally” come to the table.
“It needs to happen,” she said.
Gibbs added: "With a little leadership, we could have comprehensive immigration reform."
While she acknowledged that the sluggish U.S. economy was partially responsible for the decrease in illegal border crossings, Napolitano said Obama's efforts have also helped to stop the flow of illegal immigration.
“These efforts are making a difference,” she said.
But Napolitano said a schedule for passing comprehensive reform is out of Obama's hands.
“This is in the hands of the Congress, and they will need to address it in a bipartisan way,” Napolitano said.
You know it’s right when she says it’s wrong.
Republicans oppose judges “tinkering” with the Constitution. Amendments done through the proper ratification process are the correct way to change something in the Constitution.
so the 1st amendment is wrong..... right????
confusing aren't they.
The last part of the 14th reads:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Only a moron would attempt to make this point. The 14th Amendment is an AMENDMENT! It's not part of the originial construction that strict constuctionists try so damned hard to defend! How did this idiot ever get a job? Even for a rat like obama, I'd expect a more intelligent...evil and diabolical perhaps....man for the job. Gibbs is just as dumb as a sack of hammers.
Yeah. She and her pupeteer like it the way it is - they just ignore it anyway.
Exactly! There’s nothing “wrong” with amending the Constituion as long as the legal process is followed.
Until 1982 no one had distorted the 14th Amendment to give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.
You’re correct but it’s not clear that that is what she’s talking about.
“It's rich in its irony; it's wrong in its approach,” Gibbs said.
What's so wrong with it? The Constitution has a flaw (or else the current courts' interpretation has a flaw which the courts will not allow to be fixed legislatively), thus we want to change the Constitution. That is what strict contructionists say you should do. Just like when there was no constitutional authority to outlaw alcohol and the people wanted it done, then the 18th amendment was passed. When that was seen to be a mistake, it was removed.
On top of the 14th's current interpretation of birth right citizenship, I would like to redo the interstate commerce clause, the constitutional supremecy of treaties and on those days when I'm not thinking of how corrupt Blagojevich was in selling a Senate seat I would like to repeal the 17th amendment.
Where's the irony? I don't see it. It is the strict constructionist view to desire change through the constitutional amendment process rather than judicial fiat.
Can anyone spell "1984"?????????????
There was an interesting article posted awhile back, it pointed out that the children of diplomats born here are not US citizens.
“....prevent the natural born children of illegal immigrants from obtaining citizenship.”
They can not be Natural born citizens as their PARENTS are not US CITIZENS.
Yet again weasel wording arguments!
If Janet Lesbitano is against it, then I’m for it.
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.