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 ...
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.
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.