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.
Immigration reform is a good idea. I'm all in favor of reforming immigration.
which would include a pathway to citizenship for the country’s illegal immigrants.
Why? Why is that necessary? There's plenty of ways to change both the immigration laws and how they are enforced in a positive fashion without doing that.
So, why are you talking about it, Janet??
How about both of these stupid asshats just go away. Gibbs criticizes republicans as, “strict constructionists talking about tinkering with the Constitution.” That’s the way it was originally intended to be changed - not by activist judges finding “emanations and penumbras” that only exist in their addled little minds.
That is why a constitutional amendment is needed. The 14th amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Born OR naturalized = automatic citizenship. Not “and”. There is no doubt that as it is in the constitution now, it is crystal clear all it takes to earn citizenship is to take your first breath on American soil.
The wording made sense back then because we basically had open borders and anyone on a ship could walk through the front door to try for a better life; this was a time when quick transportation was impossible so most of the problems we face on this issue are a byproduct of modern day technology.
Thus, the only way to fix it is a new amendment to the constitution. There is no other way to interpret the wording without being intellectually dishonest.
citizenship does not specifically state NATURAL BORN Citizenship - which Article 2, section 1 clearly states.
Illegal invaders have not subjected themselves to our immigration laws and procedures, and by extension they have not subjected their offspring to our immigration laws and procedures. Thus the argument that the 14th Amendment grant their offspring citizenship is false.
A child of illegal immigrants can NOT NOT NOT be a natural born citizen.
This author, I believe, is deliberately confusing, in an Orwellian manner, the meaning of natural born and native born.
“...because we would just ignore it anyway.”
They are absolutely subject to our jurisdiction. If they murder someone, they go to prison. If they run a traffic light, they pay a ticket. They may not have citizenship, but if they steal from your business, they are going to jail under the laws.
The wording was meant, if I recall, to prohibit children of ambassadors and diplomats from gaining citizenship because they are the only people who can be in the United States and not subject to our laws.
In other words, the ambassador from Germany could, quite literally, shoot people on the steps of a federal courthouse and he cannot be charged with a crime because he is beyond the reach of American laws and not subject to our jurisdiction. We can only throw him our or beg Germany to remove his immunity and give us that right.
An illegal immigrant does not enjoy such rights under our constitution and treaties. If they shoot someone, they go to prison for murder. The fact that federal prosecutors may exercise discretion and deport them only underscores that they are under America’s jurisdiction.
Be intellectually honest about it. It sucks but the wording leaves no doubt that anchor babies are constitutional. That is why the constitution must be amended.
Hell, I hate the phenomenon but I couldn’t bring myself to rule against it if I were on the bench because anyone with any understanding of the purpose behind the 14th amendment and the history of it couldn’t possibly support that interpretation. It would be a form of conservative judicial activism because I would be knowingly overturning the law to fit it to what I thought was a “good” ends. That still doesn’t make it right.
Just amend the constitution.
Blago took away a lot of my anti-17th zeal, but not all of it.
In other words; I am not arguing for them exercising the amount of power that they do on behalf of the Fed instead of the State, or the State instead of the Fed. I don't think they should have the amount of power they do in the first place!
First of all, the 14th amendment was written so children of newly freed slaves (Slaves were not initially citezens)and native American Indians (who were legaly considered an independednt nation of people) would be granted full citezenship rights inspite of the ‘quazi’ citezenship of their parents at the time. No reasonable person then or now would be against the purpose of that amendment. The idea of giving citezenship to an illegal immigrants baby is just manifestly crazy, though.
I had similar thoughts. It truly is an idiotic position. I mean, is he THAT stupid or will they just say anything to undermine the oppositions position?
Not as far as original intent is concerned.
What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means
Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard then settled upon a construction for “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” with Trumbull declaring: The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Unless the Diplomats can show that they were here illegally.
That was a great read; thanks for sending that along!
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.