Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fiorina says she opposes calls to alter the 14th Amendment (RINO ALERT)
The Los Angeles Times ^ | 2010-08-13

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; aliens; amnesty; anchorbabies; ca2010; carlymccain; fiorina; hispandering; illegals; immigrantlist; immigration; mccain; rino; trojanhorse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

1 posted on 08/13/2010 7:22:23 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

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).


2 posted on 08/13/2010 7:24:20 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; AuntB; Liz; Man50D; pissant; Bokababe; TigersEye; ...
*Ping!*
3 posted on 08/13/2010 7:24:28 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The 14th Amendment was never intended to be used as an escalator to citizenship. It’s time that its correct meaning be understood.


4 posted on 08/13/2010 7:24:57 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (DemocRATS! America's Taliban!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

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.


5 posted on 08/13/2010 7:25:56 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
The 14th does not need to be ammended. It has been misinterpreted for years. All it needs is to be interpreted properly.

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.

6 posted on 08/13/2010 7:26:35 AM PDT by Personal Responsibility (In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act - Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

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


7 posted on 08/13/2010 7:27:09 AM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (JD for Senate ..... jdforsenate.com. You either voting for JD, or voting for the Liberal...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

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.


8 posted on 08/13/2010 7:29:44 AM PDT by newfreep (Palin/DeMint 2012 - Bolton: Secy of State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

If we don’t roll over and strongly support amnesty, open borders and birthright citezenship, we’ll lose the hispanic vote. /s


9 posted on 08/13/2010 7:30:40 AM PDT by umgud (Obama is a failed experiment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
"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."

That's actually an accurate statement, subject to Liberal/Conservative interpretation and implementation.

10 posted on 08/13/2010 7:32:46 AM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
i would rather NOT have Fiorina running, but now that she is I HOPE she defeats Boxer.

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!)

11 posted on 08/13/2010 7:33:37 AM PDT by Mr. K (Physically unable to proofreed (<---oops! see?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

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.


12 posted on 08/13/2010 7:36:15 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

What do you expect? Half the people she wants to represent either have anchor babies or are anchor babies themselves.


13 posted on 08/13/2010 7:39:15 AM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Hmm... RINO Alert.

Hey, let’s all stay home and not vote for the RINO because that worked so well in 2006 and 2008.


14 posted on 08/13/2010 7:40:16 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Helter Skelter. The Revolution is Upon Us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

>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.


15 posted on 08/13/2010 7:40:29 AM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat

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.


16 posted on 08/13/2010 7:42:42 AM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat

“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?


17 posted on 08/13/2010 7:42:49 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Helter Skelter. The Revolution is Upon Us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

“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!


18 posted on 08/13/2010 7:44:01 AM PDT by WOSG (OPERATION RESTORE AMERICAN FREEDOM - NOVEMBER, 2010 - DO YOUR PART!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
“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.”

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?

19 posted on 08/13/2010 7:46:46 AM PDT by NoDRodee (U>S>M>C)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

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.


20 posted on 08/13/2010 7:47:59 AM PDT by Reagan is King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud
...we’ll lose the hispanic vote.

To lose something, you must first have it.

21 posted on 08/13/2010 7:52:27 AM PDT by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty too! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

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?


22 posted on 08/13/2010 7:56:34 AM PDT by old school
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

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.


23 posted on 08/13/2010 8:02:31 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success, not failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

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.


24 posted on 08/13/2010 8:05:32 AM PDT by navysealdad (http://drdavehouseoffun.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

Yes. Have any of these great minds ever bothered to actually READ the 14th?


25 posted on 08/13/2010 8:09:19 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
The 14th Amendment was never intended to be used as an escalator to citizenship. It’s time that its correct meaning be understood.

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.

26 posted on 08/13/2010 8:19:07 AM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

“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.


27 posted on 08/13/2010 8:22:05 AM PDT by NeverForgetBataan (To the German Commander: ..........................NUTS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
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).

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.

28 posted on 08/13/2010 8:23:26 AM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newfreep

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

29 posted on 08/13/2010 8:24:28 AM PDT by norge (The amiable dunce is back, wearing a skirt and high heels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
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).

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.

30 posted on 08/13/2010 8:28:48 AM PDT by MaggieCarta (I'm never fully dressed without a snark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

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.


31 posted on 08/13/2010 8:29:16 AM PDT by techno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
...I do not want a Constitution Convention to be called. It would open a can of worms I never want to see opened.

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!

32 posted on 08/13/2010 8:33:49 AM PDT by MaggieCarta (I'm never fully dressed without a snark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

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.


33 posted on 08/13/2010 8:34:29 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

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.


34 posted on 08/13/2010 8:37:03 AM PDT by St. Louis Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I see nothing has changed since her days at HP. She’s the same dependable idiot she always was.


35 posted on 08/13/2010 8:39:40 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Eat more spinach! Make Green Jobs for America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: navysealdad

Nice. Thanks.


36 posted on 08/13/2010 8:44:20 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success, not failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; rabscuttle385

” 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.


37 posted on 08/13/2010 8:56:46 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (.Go troops! " Vote out RINOS. They screw you EVERY time" Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

“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.


38 posted on 08/13/2010 9:02:26 AM PDT by secondamendmentkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

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.


39 posted on 08/13/2010 9:18:20 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

Exactly... and it just keep oozing out over time.


40 posted on 08/13/2010 9:20:51 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success, not failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Fiorina or Boxer.

Lemme think about that one.

OK, I'm done. I'll vote for Fiorina.

41 posted on 08/13/2010 9:21:52 AM PDT by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

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.


42 posted on 08/13/2010 9:22:40 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MaggieCarta

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.


43 posted on 08/13/2010 9:23:44 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success, not failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

“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.


44 posted on 08/13/2010 9:25:51 AM PDT by secondamendmentkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
There’s no need to alter the 14th. Just stop mis-interpreting it.

Exactly!

45 posted on 08/13/2010 9:25:55 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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”


46 posted on 08/13/2010 9:26:27 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (.Go troops! " Vote out RINOS. They screw you EVERY time" Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
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.

Exactamundo!

47 posted on 08/13/2010 9:42:24 AM PDT by MaggieCarta (I'm never fully dressed without a snark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior
You, UCFRRoadWarrior and Freeper, are right on point and all this crap about a constitutional amendment to rectify the situation is nothing more, and nothing less than a smoke screen by politicians.

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.

48 posted on 08/13/2010 9:42:48 AM PDT by Old Badger (boy do opportunities abound everywhere for Real Conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

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.


49 posted on 08/13/2010 9:44:30 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
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”

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...

50 posted on 08/13/2010 9:48:45 AM PDT by MaggieCarta (I'm never fully dressed without a snark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson