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 ...
There’s no need to alter the 14th. Just stop mis-interpreting it. Births to foreigners were addressed in the Congressional debate, and the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language was supposed to take care of that. But, that’s been conveniently forgotten by vote-pandering schemers of both parties (GWB, too).
The 14th Amendment was never intended to be used as an escalator to citizenship. It’s time that its correct meaning be understood.
Good. Don’t try to alter it at all. Just clarify that it means what it was originally intended to mean and that children born of aliens in this country have the same citizenship status as their alien parents.
Here's the relevant text: Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Mark Levin spent about a half hour Wednesday talking about how you can't confer jurisdiction on yourself simply by being here. His audio is up on his website - I strongly encourage anyone who thinks we need to ammend the 14th to listen to the broadcast from Aug 11th.
While I am no fan of the changing the Constitution in regard of the 14th Amendment (Lindsey Graham’s attempt to Backdoor Amnesty)....Fiorina is still a Liberal RINO who is lying about her support of Illegal Alien Amnesty
BTW....the 14th Amendment allows for legislative adjustment...so they can fix the Anchor-Baby stuff without going the Const Amendment route....the Const Amend. route is just Grahamnesty’s Backdoor Illegal Alien Amnesty
Carly may lean toward RINOism but she would be a HUGH improvement over that Box-o-Rocks.
This is Kaleefornia - baby steps to get better.
LAT simply trying to discourage her supporters and help Box-O win in Nov.
If we don’t roll over and strongly support amnesty, open borders and birthright citezenship, we’ll lose the hispanic vote. /s
That's actually an accurate statement, subject to Liberal/Conservative interpretation and implementation.
But the best thing she can do is STFU and let the ant-incumbant mood take down Boxer.
That said, this IS California... A majority of voters there probably agree with her.. It would be nice to have someone pander to the democraps then STICK IT TO THEM after the election (there's always a first time!)
I will have a difficult time voting for Carly, but I guess I will. The only thing she gives us is a possible Senate majority..but she not be there on many of the issues that we find important.
What do you expect? Half the people she wants to represent either have anchor babies or are anchor babies themselves.
Hmm... RINO Alert.
Hey, let’s all stay home and not vote for the RINO because that worked so well in 2006 and 2008.
>But the best thing she can do is STFU and let the ant-incumbant mood take down Boxer.
How true. How true.
I cannot believe that she felt the political need to interject herself into a contentious debate that will be spun against here no matter what she says.
The only thing she gives us is a possible Senate majority.
Right now that would be HUGE.
Redistricting is coming up & we do not want to be on the short end of that stick!
Half a loaf would definitely be better in Cal & we can always work for more. :)
Thank you for your post.
“I will have a difficult time voting for Carly, but I guess I will. The only thing she gives us is a possible Senate majority..but she not be there on many of the issues that we find important.”
Just curious. What issues besides a SCOTUS nominee, the economy, Obamacare, National Security, Amnesty or an energy policy would make you not vote for Carly?
“There’s no need to alter the 14th. Just stop mis-interpreting it. Births to foreigners were addressed in the Congressional debate, and the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language was supposed to take care of that.”
EXACTLY. THIS NEEDS TO BE SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN.
The media is trying to make this about ‘changing the constitution’ when in fact its not. They makes it sound more radical than it is. Tere is NOTHING in the consitution that requires a person who crosses illegally at midnight and give birth at 12:05 on US soil to be a US citizen at birth.
Previous SCOTUS rulings extended birthright citizenship to children of permanent residents, but no further!
I agree - Secure the Borders and there is no need to touch 14th Amendment.
Also: 14th Amendment interpeted correctly do not allow birth citizenship for illegals.
Why change it?
It’s my understanding that they can amend the amendment which was never intended for anchor babies. That’s a much easier and doable route IMO and needs to be done asap. And yes, Fiorina is a RINO but since she’s opposing that old bat Boxer I’d vote for her if I had to until we could get a real conservative in there.
To lose something, you must first have it.
Under what circumstances would you find it advisable to gather a bunch of lunatics at a convention to alter the Constitution of the United States?
Those of you who are saying that you don’t think the 14th Amendment needs to be changed, are probably each thinking that it was never intended to grant illegal alien children citizenship. I agree.
So when you object to having it changed, I understand.
Do you think that’s why Fiorina disagrees with changing it?
Don’t kid yourself. She disagrees with changing it because she doesn’t object to illegal alien children being granted U. S. citizenship.
As for the 14th being interpreted correctly, I think that cat is out of the bag. It’s probably going to take some sort of corrective measure to the actual verbiage itself to get this fixed. I believe the court has ruled on it before.
Perhaps a review would end favorably. I’m not sure.
Whatever it takes, within reason, this needs to be fixed.
I do not want a Constitution Convention to be called. It would open a can of worms I never want to see opened.
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.
Yes. Have any of these great minds ever bothered to actually READ the 14th?
I think its precisely the wrong time to address this issue. This amendment is little understood by the electorate and is easily used by the liberals to show how mean spirited the Republican candidates are.
Win back the House and Senate and then address this issue in the Courts, where the misinterpretation began in the first place.
“Fiorina is still a Liberal RINO who is lying about her support of Illegal Alien Amnesty”
You can’t trust failed CEO’s who try to resurrect their flamed out careers by turning to politics. Fiorina’s loyalties are still with the politics of big business and that will mean unwavering support of cheap labor. That is bred into DNA these elitist, POS, RINO’s.
I agree with your point and also say that altering the 14th ammendment would be the longest path to achieve the desired result. It could take as long as 10 years before final ratification by enough states. Effective enforcement of current immigration laws would eliminate a huge majority of these type births negating the need for altering the ammendment. If you don't have illegals in the country, you don't have illegals giving birth in the country. This remedy is readily available as soon as the federal government chooses to use it.
Carly may lean toward RINOism but she would be a HUGH improvement over that Box-o-Rocks.
Bull, I'll vote for Boxer before I'll vote for a RINO! /sarc
I would tend to agree that illegals, who by definition, are flouting the law have not submitted themselves to its jurisdiction.
If we are going to alter amednments to the USC, there are better places to start--Let's see...the 16th and 17th spring to mind.
I agree with Carly. Promoting enforcing the current federal law and bring to the public’s attention that Obama is NOT doing his job as the chief law enforcement of the USA in securing the borders.
I'm with you, D1. I liked your analysis. I was feeling bad about seeming to side with Fiorino, but I believe that you nailed it on her reasons.
Have a great afternoon!
Low intelligence is not a good quality for a senatorial prospect. Fiorina should go change her hairdo. Sounds like it might better match her skill IQ.
Stop hiring illegals. Prosecute those who do. Pass a law stating that anyone who enters this country illegally is barred from ever obtaining US citizenship, and extend that to their anchor babies. The 14th Amendment will be unmolested.
The 14th amendment issue is a joke, and distracts from real action on immigration. Amending the constitution is just flat out not feasible in this case. People who bring it up know this, and are only doing it to deflect criticism from their previous inaction or reluctance to support immigration enforcement. Lindsey Graham, for instance, is one who is involved in 14th amendment talks.
I see nothing has changed since her days at HP. She’s the same dependable idiot she always was.
Nice. Thanks.
” Do you think that’s why Fiorina disagrees with changing it?
Don’t kid yourself. She disagrees with changing it because she doesn’t object to illegal alien children being granted U. S. citizenship. “
McCain’s little girl.
“Redistricting is coming up & we do not want to be on the short end of that stick!”
Actually, redistricting is performed by State legislatures ordinarily, not by the Feds. To get more GOP rep in Congress, you need to elect GOP/conservatives to your state legislature. Of course in Californica, that would be overturned by an arrogant leftist Federal judge who knows the Constitution better than the voters.
Not a surprise. She will be a thorn in the Senate but better than Barb, but mark my words she will disappoint us many many times over.
Exactly... and it just keep oozing out over time.
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...
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.