Posted on 08/13/2010 10:51:30 AM PDT by jazusamo
Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano on Friday rejected Republican calls to amend the Constitution to prevent children of illegal immigrants from gaining citizenship.
“Any talk of amending the Constitution is just wrong,” Napolitano said in comments at the daily White House press briefing.
Some Republicans have suggested the 14th Amendment should be changed to prevent the natural born children of illegal immigrants from obtaining citizenship. The amendment was approved after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for freed slaves, especially in the South.
Critics argue that illegal immigrants come to the U.S. for the express purpose of winning citizenship for babies born in the U.S.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted Republicans for suggesting a closer examination and possible change to the equal protection amendment, noting the irony of a party dedicated to strict constructionists talking about tinkering with the Constitution.
“It's rich in its irony; it's wrong in its approach,” Gibbs said.
Napolitano also hit the GOP for not joining the Obama administration in calling for comprehensive immigration reform, which would include a pathway to citizenship for the country’s illegal immigrants.
Napolitano is the former governor of Arizona, the frontline in today’s immigration debate. The federal government successfully sued Arizona over its controversial immigration law, which would give new powers to local police to crack down on illegal immigrants.
The Homeland Security secretary boasted that the $600 million bill President Obama signed Friday for border security is a step in the right direction, but comprehensive reform will only be possible when “Republicans finally” come to the table.
“It needs to happen,” she said.
Gibbs added: "With a little leadership, we could have comprehensive immigration reform."
While she acknowledged that the sluggish U.S. economy was partially responsible for the decrease in illegal border crossings, Napolitano said Obama's efforts have also helped to stop the flow of illegal immigration.
“These efforts are making a difference,” she said.
But Napolitano said a schedule for passing comprehensive reform is out of Obama's hands.
“This is in the hands of the Congress, and they will need to address it in a bipartisan way,” Napolitano said.
You know it’s right when she says it’s wrong.
Republicans oppose judges “tinkering” with the Constitution. Amendments done through the proper ratification process are the correct way to change something in the Constitution.
so the 1st amendment is wrong..... right????
confusing aren't they.
The last part of the 14th reads:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Only a moron would attempt to make this point. The 14th Amendment is an AMENDMENT! It's not part of the originial construction that strict constuctionists try so damned hard to defend! How did this idiot ever get a job? Even for a rat like obama, I'd expect a more intelligent...evil and diabolical perhaps....man for the job. Gibbs is just as dumb as a sack of hammers.
Yeah. She and her pupeteer like it the way it is - they just ignore it anyway.
Exactly! There’s nothing “wrong” with amending the Constituion as long as the legal process is followed.
Until 1982 no one had distorted the 14th Amendment to give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.
You’re correct but it’s not clear that that is what she’s talking about.
“It's rich in its irony; it's wrong in its approach,” Gibbs said.
What's so wrong with it? The Constitution has a flaw (or else the current courts' interpretation has a flaw which the courts will not allow to be fixed legislatively), thus we want to change the Constitution. That is what strict contructionists say you should do. Just like when there was no constitutional authority to outlaw alcohol and the people wanted it done, then the 18th amendment was passed. When that was seen to be a mistake, it was removed.
On top of the 14th's current interpretation of birth right citizenship, I would like to redo the interstate commerce clause, the constitutional supremecy of treaties and on those days when I'm not thinking of how corrupt Blagojevich was in selling a Senate seat I would like to repeal the 17th amendment.
Where's the irony? I don't see it. It is the strict constructionist view to desire change through the constitutional amendment process rather than judicial fiat.
Can anyone spell "1984"?????????????
There was an interesting article posted awhile back, it pointed out that the children of diplomats born here are not US citizens.
“....prevent the natural born children of illegal immigrants from obtaining citizenship.”
They can not be Natural born citizens as their PARENTS are not US CITIZENS.
Yet again weasel wording arguments!
If Janet Lesbitano is against it, then I’m for it.
Who pulled her string?
As if we could give a sh*t about her opinion on that matter, or any other.
... unlike ignoring the constitution.
They keep talking about amending the Constitution but that’s a smokescreen. It doesn’t need to be changed, Congress is within their rights to end anchor baby abuse legislatively and all the “opponents” know it, including Harry Reid and Napolitano.
The legal fiction is that diplomat remains domiciled in his home country, even if he stays in this country for years at a go.
Children of transient visitors (non resident visa, and via waiver situations; not just illegals) should likewise obtain the citizenship of their parents' domicile. This is what "subject to the jurisdiction" meant when it was passed. As interpreted (incorrectly), the words are surplussage. Meaning that even if "subject to the jurisdiction" was removed from the 14th amendment, children of diplomats would still be citizens of the their home country - ergo, those words aren't in the 14th amendment to protect the citizenship of the diplomat's kids.
LOL!
“This F-ing plum falls in my F-ing lap; and I'm supposed to F-ing give it away? No F-ing way!” Gov Blagojevich on his duty to find a new Senator for the people of Illinois.
Yes, absent the direct election of Senators, smoky backroom deals would be the norm. A whole lot of ‘you scratch my back, i scratch yours’, etc.
Aye, a deliberate one. The intent is to make it "too hard" to change, so that the people are misled to think that the country must, as a matter of "the way things are and should be," admit to citizenship every person born on this soil, regardless.
If Congress out and admitted it could do this by legislation, the outcry would be "where have you boneheads been for the last 30 years?"
Another favorite diversion is to assign the decision either to a court, or to a regulatory agency. See too, assigning monetary policy to the Federal Reserve.
Yea, but it seems reasonable to overturn the CA Constitution any time you want. Go figure?
Any law eliminating anchor babies would immediately be struck down as a violation of the 14th Amendment. The only way to prevent the phenomenon is by amending the Constitution.
The same applies to the Definition of Marriage. Without a constitutional amendment, we’re at the mercy of activist courts.
Uh, Janet, you dumbass, the Constitution outlines the process for amending the Constitution.
Since the founding fathers anticipated the possible need for changes they put that in.
You may not agree with the talk, but it's not wrong.
Article 5 - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
How can these people, charged with the responsibility of administering the fed government, possibly function without an understanding of the document that allows them to exist as functionaries?
I want all government functionaries to pass a test before they can be sworn in and allowed to serve.
Most probably it was the Southern Democrats in the civil war era who were against citizenship for the children of freed slaves.
Most probably it was the Southern Democrats in the civil war era who were against citizenship for the children of freed slaves.
I want term limits for congress as well as a defensive of marriage amendment.
I believe you’re correct and the fruitcake judge Walker overturning Prop 8 is a good example. His ruling might not stand but it shows the activist judges will stop at nothing on issues such as these.
Anchor babies are costing us billions annually but in reality is just another cheap immigration program that so many in Congress support. We take in 2 million a year legally but that's still not enough for many of them.
So far Lamar Smith is one of the few honest ones who's said publicly this can be done through legislation but it looks to me like there are those as usual trying to find excuses not to do it.
Amen to that.
“natural born children of illegal ...”
That is the whole point, natural born MEANS a child born of US citizens, whether on US soil or otherwise authorized (Foreign servie/Mil duty and a few obsure others).
The children of illegals are NOT US citizens in the natural born sense and should not be US citizens at all.
Yes, I am a meany.
Immigration reform is a good idea. I'm all in favor of reforming immigration.
which would include a pathway to citizenship for the country’s illegal immigrants.
Why? Why is that necessary? There's plenty of ways to change both the immigration laws and how they are enforced in a positive fashion without doing that.
So, why are you talking about it, Janet??
How about both of these stupid asshats just go away. Gibbs criticizes republicans as, “strict constructionists talking about tinkering with the Constitution.” That’s the way it was originally intended to be changed - not by activist judges finding “emanations and penumbras” that only exist in their addled little minds.
That is why a constitutional amendment is needed. The 14th amendment states, “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.”
Born OR naturalized = automatic citizenship. Not “and”. There is no doubt that as it is in the constitution now, it is crystal clear all it takes to earn citizenship is to take your first breath on American soil.
The wording made sense back then because we basically had open borders and anyone on a ship could walk through the front door to try for a better life; this was a time when quick transportation was impossible so most of the problems we face on this issue are a byproduct of modern day technology.
Thus, the only way to fix it is a new amendment to the constitution. There is no other way to interpret the wording without being intellectually dishonest.
citizenship does not specifically state NATURAL BORN Citizenship - which Article 2, section 1 clearly states.
Illegal invaders have not subjected themselves to our immigration laws and procedures, and by extension they have not subjected their offspring to our immigration laws and procedures. Thus the argument that the 14th Amendment grant their offspring citizenship is false.
A child of illegal immigrants can NOT NOT NOT be a natural born citizen.
This author, I believe, is deliberately confusing, in an Orwellian manner, the meaning of natural born and native born.
“...because we would just ignore it anyway.”
They are absolutely subject to our jurisdiction. If they murder someone, they go to prison. If they run a traffic light, they pay a ticket. They may not have citizenship, but if they steal from your business, they are going to jail under the laws.
The wording was meant, if I recall, to prohibit children of ambassadors and diplomats from gaining citizenship because they are the only people who can be in the United States and not subject to our laws.
In other words, the ambassador from Germany could, quite literally, shoot people on the steps of a federal courthouse and he cannot be charged with a crime because he is beyond the reach of American laws and not subject to our jurisdiction. We can only throw him our or beg Germany to remove his immunity and give us that right.
An illegal immigrant does not enjoy such rights under our constitution and treaties. If they shoot someone, they go to prison for murder. The fact that federal prosecutors may exercise discretion and deport them only underscores that they are under America’s jurisdiction.
Be intellectually honest about it. It sucks but the wording leaves no doubt that anchor babies are constitutional. That is why the constitution must be amended.
Hell, I hate the phenomenon but I couldn’t bring myself to rule against it if I were on the bench because anyone with any understanding of the purpose behind the 14th amendment and the history of it couldn’t possibly support that interpretation. It would be a form of conservative judicial activism because I would be knowingly overturning the law to fit it to what I thought was a “good” ends. That still doesn’t make it right.
Just amend the constitution.
Blago took away a lot of my anti-17th zeal, but not all of it.
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.