Skip to comments.The Constitutional Amendment Con
Posted on 08/09/2010 5:58:17 AM PDT by rellimpank
Last Friday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) let the cat out of the bag: his sudden crusade to reform birthright citizenship is directly related to his need for political cover on amnesty for illegal immigrants.
"Yeah, I think it's fair to say that I need to go home to South Carolina and say: listen, I know we're all upset that we have 12-14 million people illegally, " Graham told National Review's Daniel Foster. "I'm going to have to be practical. We're not going to deport or jail 12-14 million people." Graham's practical solution is the same old "comprehensive immigration reform," the logic of which is that it would not be amnesty for grand theft auto if the perpetrator got to keep the car in exchange for paying a fine and promising to read the owner's manual.
Of course, Graham already gave away the game when he entertained a constitutional amendment to clarify what the 14th Amendment says about birthright citizenship. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait recently snickered at the number of conservative constitutional amendments floating around that have been endorsed by "mainstream Republicans," but the joke is really on conservatives: a no-hope constitutional amendment is the usual way a GOP politician pays lip service to some conservative concern he plans to do nothing about.
A classic example is the antiabortion human life amendment. At its peak in 1984, it got 49 votes in a Republican-controlled Senate with a sympathetic, articulate pro-lifer in the White House -- 18 votes short of passage, two shy of a simple majority. Fast forward more than twenty years to the federal marriage amendment. With a 10-seat Republican majority in the Senate and a sympathetic if inarticulate president, the gay marriage amendment failed 49 to 48.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
All you people saying that Senator Graham is the most disgusting piece of filth to ever live are just wrong. If you give me some time I’m sure I could come up with somebody worse.
I’ve been saying all along that its a distraction. It means even more will be illegal and the border still unprotected.
Controlling the border is a far more effective means of cutting the illegal birth rate.
If we can perform millions of credit card tranactions in a second, there's no reason for an illegal to ever get another job in this country with electronic verification of a social security number.
His home is DC, S.C. is just a watering hole with votes for him.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) needs to be replaced.
PRESIDENTS HOOVER & EISENHOWER DEPORTED MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS SO AMERICANS HAD WORK!
Based on my personal experience here in central virginia, the legal migrants come and go, back and forth, to mexico and elsewhere a couple times a year.
The same must be true with the illegals. It’s not as though a lot of them come here and never go back.
This is the big joke about “deportation.”
If the illegals’ jobs go away, they will too. They got here on their own, they can take their kids and go back on their own, too.
End of problem.
John / Billybob
He kept his part of the bargain.
Congress DIDN'T keep theirs.
What a surprise.
The message is that when it comes to Congress agreeing to do ANYTHING about immigration, we can count on them to lie about what they plan to do and/or not follow through on anything they said that they would.
After all, in THEIR pinheaded brains, THEY own us, WE don't own the government.
So, how many pink slips are we sending this year?
(And DON'T go squishy at the last minute, and decide that YOUR Congresscritters are ok, it's everyone ELSE'S Congresscritter!! If they aren't part of the solution (and, NONE of them are), then they are part of the problem (and, ALL of them are!!).
Watching Republicans on TV fumble around on this it dawned on me this is just another traditional marriage amendment scam . Republicans used that scam in 2004 to get out the vote when they had no intention of doing anything about it either (and look where it got us in CA).
There is no need to amend the constitution for this. Currently the Federal government does NOT give citizenship to children of UN diplomats born in the USA and does NOT have to give it to illegals. RINOs talking about amending the constitution are just sabotaging the idea by feeding MSNBC talking points. I see very few Republicans making the good case for this. This is about keeping illegal families together, in Mexico.
Did democrats amend the US constitution to make abortion, same sex marriage and being here illegally from Mexico new constitutional rights???? NO and there was NO talk of it either. Those rights just appeared out of the blue like this right did in the 1980s. But in this case suddenly this becomes an issue about the impossible.
The majority of the results were “self-deportation.” Recognizing the handwriting on the wall, hundreds of thousands of aliens picked up and went home to Mexico. Exactly the same thing was happening in Arizona until the idiot judge Bolton enjoined the enforcement of the law.
If the American press would read the actual history of Eisenhower's effort (the last successful one) it would bury the “you can't deport millions of people” false claim.
John / Billybob
we should prolly amend the 2A to say something about ‘shall not be infringed’...oh wait...
“the logic of which is that it would not be amnesty for grand theft auto if the perpetrator got to keep the car in exchange for paying a fine and promising to read the owner’s manual.”
That’s a keeper!
“We’re not going to deport or jail 12-14 million people.”
Why the hell not? Just DO IT!
The vast majority will leave on their own once firm examples are made...You may not get every single solitary one but so what?
I am so sick of that silly reason.
Why the hell not? Just DO IT!*
I'm very tired of hearing that as well.
If we can win wars in fought in other countries, it shouldn't be difficult to deport people that have invaded our country. Most will go peacefully and many will self-deport.
IT CAN BE DONE