Top GOP Senator REPEAL THE 14TH AMENDMENT

[bobbyw24]

CBS) Updated 12:44 p.m. ET

Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., said today that Congress should hold hearings to look into denying citizenship to illegal aliens' children born in the United States, as the fight over immigration widens into the explosive "birthright" issue.

Kyl told CBS' "Face the Nation" that he supports a call by fellow Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to introduce a new amendment to repeal the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Support is growing for this stunning reversal from Graham, who in 2007 drew the ire of Republicans when he lobbied for granting legal status to 12 million undocumented workers, and along with President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., led the failed immigration reform effort that would have given illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.

The 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868 to ensure that states would not deny citizenship to former slaves. It reads, "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."

Arizona's Republican State Sen. Russell Pearce - the architect of the controversial immigration law that was largely struck down by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton - also separately proposed the same measure.

"The 14th Amendment [has been] interpreted to provide that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what," Kyl said. "So the question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?"

Kyl said Congress should hold hearings and invite constitutional experts to look at the state of the 14th Amendment. The growing support for the issue suggests the Republicans are exploring different strategies to fight the Obama administration's victory over the Arizona immigration law, after Bolton issued a preliminary injunction on key provisions.

Kyl is a supporter of the law.

"I think the court's decision was wrong," he said today. "The governor and legislative leaders have talked about possibly tweaking - to use their phrase - the law to see if they can obviate the concerns the judge expressed. I don't think they can because her decision was very sweeping.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/01/ftn/main6733905.shtml?tag=contentBody;featuredPost-PE

[FrankRep]

It is the official policy of the U.S. government that any child, born in this country to illegal immigrants, automatically and immediately becomes a citizen of the United States; this policy of granting citizenship to anchor babies is based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, which in fact was not legally adopted. By Chip Wood


Anchor Babies and the Illegal 14th (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/chip-wood/3641-anchor-babies-and-the-illegal-14th)


Chip Wood | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Thursday, 27 May 2010


There are many policies of our federal government that I think are absolutely absurd. But on a long list of craziness, this may be the craziest: It is the official policy of the U.S. government that any child, born in this country to illegal immigrants, automatically and immediately becomes a citizen of the United States!

Such infants are sometimes referred to as “anchor babies,” because their immediate and automatic citizenship is the “anchor” on which a host of other claims, from welfare to the citizenship of others, can be made.

On the face of it, this sounds patently absurd. How can a newborn baby be eligible for citizenship when his or her parents are not? Not merely eligible, mind you, but granted it automatically?

Many of us have grandparents or great-grandparents who overcame incredible obstacles to become citizens of this country. Before they were accepted they had to pass a rigorous and demanding test. The questions they were asked, and their answers, had to be in English.

As an essential part of the process, every immigrant was required to renounce allegiance to the country he or she had left and to swear allegiance to his newly adopted home — the United States of America. And every new citizen was thrilled to do so.

There was a solemn ceremony, often conducted by a judge sitting high on a bench above them, issuing the oath of allegiance. Friends and family welcomed the new citizens with hugs and tears and enthusiastic applause.

That is what citizenship for an immigrant used to mean. But today we are required to bestow it on anyone whose mother can sneak across our border a few hours before her baby is born. That is absolutely insane.

The new citizen is immediately entitled to all the benefits that accompany citizenship — schooling, medical care, food stamps, and other welfare and a whole host of “public assistance.” Moreover, that new citizen is now entitled to invite other family members — mother and father, aunts and uncles, cousins and grandparents, nephews and nieces — to come visit them in their newly adopted country and even apply for citizenship here.

How did such utter craziness come to be accepted as the law of the land? Well, the first thing you need to know is that there is no such law.

If you ask how automatic citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrants came about you’ll be told that the 14th Amendment requires it. This is a flat-out lie. But it’s a lie that’s been promoted by those who want to overturn the established laws and customs of our country. It’s a lie that the highest officials in this country — from the White House on down — pretend is true.

Let me share some important history with you. The 14th Amendment was proposed by Congress at the end of the Civil War. Its purpose was to make sure that newly enfranchised blacks were not denied the rights of citizenship when they returned to their homes in states that comprised the former Confederacy.

Sadly, the 14th Amendment is worded so vaguely that an activist court — spurred on by politically motivated attorneys—can interpret it almost any way it chooses. Here’s the relevant section:



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.


But what does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean? If you do a little research on the topic you’ll discover that this amendment was most emphatically not meant to include the children of aliens — even if their parents were in this country legally. Lawmakers assumed that since their parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the country where they were citizens — that is, their native country — so were their offspring, no matter where they were born.

Ah, but if you do a little more research, you’ll discover a secret that’s been kept out of our history books for more than 100 years. There are compelling reasons to believe that the 14th Amendment was never legally adopted by a sufficient number of states to make it a valid part of our Constitution. This is why the second part of this column is called “the Illegal 14th.”

First we begin with the fact that the Union position during the Civil War was that the Southern states had never left the Union. Oh, I’ll admit that the South tried to secede. We fought a terrible war over the issue. But Abraham Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy as a separate, legitimate government. Instead, he fought the war to keep the Confederacy from seceding. When the North won, Lincoln was ready to welcome the South back “with malice toward none.”

But if the Southern states never left the Union, then as soon as hostilities ended, those states and their citizens were entitled to all of the promises and protections of the U.S. Constitution. With me so far?

In the aftermath of the war all of the states that had comprised the Confederacy reformed their state governments, including both branches of their legislatures. (Remember, the Constitution guarantees every state “a republican form of government.”)

When the Federal Congress approved the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, and submitted it to the states, it was promptly ratified by most of the states in the former Confederacy and became part of our Constitution.

But this was not enough for the Radical Republicans (as they were called then) who controlled Congress. They wanted to punish the South. Even more important, they didn’t want the Southern states sending people to Congress who would oppose their plans for Reconstruction. So they proposed the 14th Amendment.

I can find no evidence that the 14th Amendment was ever approved by a two-thirds majority of the House and the Senate as the Constitution requires. In fact, there were plenty of contemporaries back in 1878 who said it was not. Nevertheless, the Radical Republican majority approved a resolution saying it had passed and submitted it to the states.

Six states that had approved the 13th Amendment balked at approving the 14th. The legislatures of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina said “no!” (So, incidentally, did New Jersey and Ohio.)

The Radicals in Washington were furious. They promptly approved a series of bills, called the Reconstruction Acts, that divided the former Confederacy into 10 military districts. The legislatures of each state were ordered dismissed “by force of arms” and were replaced by political hacks appointed by the Federal army of occupation. Seven of these military-controlled bodies then did as they were told and “ratified” the 14th Amendment.

These “rump” governments were a far cry from “the republican form of government” that the Constitution guaranteed each state. Our Founding Fathers would have been aghast at what was done in the aftermath of that very un-civil war. And they wouldn’t have agreed for a second that any “vote” by these so-called legislatures could authorize a change to the Constitution.

But change it they did. When news of these coercive measures reached Washington, Secretary of State William Seward at first refused to ratify the amendment. He was quickly brought into line by the Radical Republicans in Congress however, and on July 20, 1868, he dutifully proclaimed that the 14th Amendment was now part of our Constitution.

And here’s something you probably never considered: The effects of this nefarious bit of legislative chicanery go far beyond citizenship for a few million children of illegal immigrants.

Bet you didn’t know that the 14th Amendment has been used by the Supreme Court as the legal justification for banning prayer in public schools … or authorizing abortion on demand… for requiring the forced busing of children … or scores of other usurpations of power by our central government.

If you’ve stayed with me this far I’m sure you’re saying to yourself, “Can this possibly be true? And if it is, how is it possible that the legality of the 14th Amendment has never been challenged in the courts?”

My answer to the first question is, “Yes, I believe it is true. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified.”

My answer to the second is, “I don’t know.” I have not been able to find any record that any federal court has ever issued a ruling on the adoption of “the illegal 14th.” I can’t even find evidence of the issue being raised in a lawsuit filed in a federal court.

I can understand why those who benefit from today’s Goliath Government want to keep this issue swept under the heaviest rug they can find. But where have the conservative and libertarian talk shows, think tanks, advocacy groups, and tax-free foundations been for the past 50 years? Have any of them raised this issue? Written articles about it? Made even a peep of protest?

If they have, I’m not familiar with it. If you know otherwise pass share that information by leaving a comment below, because I really would like to know.

And so should every American who’s concerned about the future of his country.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/chip-wood/3641-anchor-babies-and-the-illegal-14th

[Daamien]

While he's at it, he should repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.

[Matt Collins]

It was never ratified, so how can it be repealed? :confused::confused:

[BuddyRey]

Of all post-Bill of Rights Amendments to the Constitution, the 14th is probably the one I find least objectionable. Having said this, it's at least a refreshing change of pace that, for once, a politician who seeks to redefine government's role in the lives of private individuals realizes that a fundamental change in the Constitution is necessary first.

[akforme]

I believe the 14th is what gave us the corporate person too.

[erowe1]

I wonder if the strategy they're following is to say they're for repealing the 14th because they know it won't succeed, so that when it doesn't they can just say, "We tried."

If they want to end anchor babies, then according to section 5 of the 14th amendment, they should just write a law for that. They don't need another constitutional amendment.

[thehunter]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 14th also get enacted to grant the black slaves of the day citizenship rights? If so, I smell a Democratic strategy of getting out that bucket of "Racist" paint they tried to use last month on Rand...

[bobbyw24]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told The Hill on Monday that Congress “ought to take a look at” changing the 14th Amendment, which gives the children of illegal immigrants a right to U.S. citizenship.

McConnell’s statement signals growing support within the GOP for the controversial idea, which has also recently been touted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

In an interview, McConnell said the 14th Amendment provision should be reconsidered in light of the country’s immigration problem.
McConnell stopped short of echoing Graham’s call for repeal of the amendment.

“I think we ought to take a look at it — hold hearings, listen to the experts on it,” McConnell said. “I haven’t made a final decision about it, but that’s something that we clearly need to look at. Regardless of how you feel about the various aspects of immigration reform, I don’t think anybody thinks that’s something they’re comfortable with.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/112287--mcconnell-congress-ought-to-take-a-look-at-altering-immigration-law

[mrsat_98]

Of all post-Bill of Rights Amendments to the Constitution, the 14th is probably the one I find least objectionable. Having said this, it's at least a refreshing change of pace that, for once, a politician who seeks to redefine government's role in the lives of private individuals realizes that a fundamental change in the Constitution is necessary first.


So you don't object to not being able to dispute the validity of the public debt ?

[bobbyw24]

The growing chorus of Senate Republicans urging repeal of the 14th Amendment as a means of denying citizenship to the children of immigrants received a rebuke Tuesday from, of all people, notorious immigration foe Lou Dobbs.

Appearing on Fox News, the former CNN host defended the constitutional amendment which provides birthright citizenship.

"The idea that anchor babies somehow require changing the 14th Amendment, I part ways with the Senators on that because I believe the 14th Amendment, particularly in its due process and equal protection clauses, is so important," Dobbs said. "It lays the foundation for the entire Bill of Rights being applied to the states."

That even Dobbs opposes the GOP push to repeal the 14th Amendment is a measure of just how radical the effort is. Some Republicans who signaled their support for the move as recently as Monday, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have already backtracked from their earlier support for broad review of the law.

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee wasn't one of them. "The Constitution is not as clear as it first appears," Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.) told reporters Tuesday. "I continue to hear good Americans explain to me they think it makes no sense."

Sessions said "we definitely should look at" repealing birthright citizenship, and "I think hearings is a good way to do it."

For his part, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday of Republicans urging repeal, "They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles." At a press conference, Reid quoted at length from a Washington Post column by Michael Gerson, including the following passage:
The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people "born or naturalized in the United States" for a reason. They wished to directly repudiate the Dred Scott decision, which said that citizenship could be granted or denied by political caprice.

More:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/03/lou-dobbs-gop-immigration-14th-amendment_n_669760.html

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

This is being proposed for the purpose of failing. They have framed the argument in the context of "anchor babies" instead of the true meaning of "citizenship". That way when we object to our corporate persons being citizens (slaves) they can say, "Well, we talked about it, but the American people want to keep things the way they are. . . Suckers!"

[cindy25]

Charlie Rangel wants to repeal the 13th

[erowe1]

Of all post-Bill of Rights Amendments to the Constitution, the 14th is probably the one I find least objectionable. Having said this, it's at least a refreshing change of pace that, for once, a politician who seeks to redefine government's role in the lives of private individuals realizes that a fundamental change in the Constitution is necessary first.

Really?

It's less objectionable than the 21st?

The 21st is probably the only one I have no qualms about at all. Every other one I can either see myself wavering on, or else completely object to. The 14th is one that I have major problems with. Granted, some of my problems relate to how it's been misused, rather than what it was originally intended for. But I still completely reject the idea of giving the federal government authority over the states in any way. If we want to use the Constitution to establish some uniform ethical standard for state laws, which is understandable in the cases of extreme crimes like slavery and abortion, then it should be done in a way that unequivocally maintains the principle of authority that derives from the consent of the governed. So, instead of saying to the states, "You must conform or we will make you conform." it should say, "If you won't conform, you must secede and can no longer be a part of the USA."

[teamrican1]

If they want to end anchor babies, then according to section 5 of the 14th amendment, they should just write a law for that. They don't need another constitutional amendment.

Section 5 only authorizes them to make laws to enforce the preceding sections. They can't make a law (no anchor babies) that directly contravenes Section 1. You need an additional amendment for that.

[johngr]

While he's at it, he should repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.

And the 19th. Things have gone way downhill since that one.

[Noob]

Repealing The 14th Amendment would undermind the recent Suprem Court ruleings about the Second Amendment.

[erowe1]

Section 5 only authorizes them to make laws to enforce the preceding sections. They can't make a law (no anchor babies) that directly contravenes Section 1. You need an additional amendment for that.

A law that excludes anchor babies from automatic citizenship does not contravene section 1. The phrase "under the jurisdiction thereof" in section 1 was intended to exclude all those people whose allegiance is to some foreign country, including not only diplomats (whose babies are already explicitly excluded from automatic citizenship in federal law), but also all foreign citizens who were temporarily visiting here. The point of section 1 wasn't to make all those people citizens, it was for those born to slaves.
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

But actually, according to section 5 of the 14th, the burden doesn't belong to those who want to end anchor babies to make a law against it (much less to repeal the amendment). The burden belongs to those who favor anchor babies to have Congress pass a law that explicitly makes anchor babies citizens. Unless Congress actually passes such a law, then the whole institution of anchor babies should not even exist. It can't follow simply from the 14th Amendment itself apart from Congress legislating it pursuant to section 5 of the amendment, such as Congress did when it passed a law making the children of slaves automatic citizens, which was the real point of section 1 of the amendment. And, as I indicated above, if Congress ever did pass a law making anchor babies automatic citizens, that would not be pursuant to the intent of the 14th Amendment.