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

Skip to comments.

Graham eyes 'birthright citizenship'
Politico ^ | 07/29/2010 | Andy Barr

Posted on 07/29/2010 8:12:41 AM PDT by OldDeckHand

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced Wednesday night that he is considering introducing a constitutional amendment that would change existing law to no longer grant citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the United States.

Currently, the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to any child born within the United States.

But with 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States, Graham said it may be time to restrict the ability of immigrants to have children who become citizens just because they are born within the country.

“I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here,” Graham said during an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake, that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen.”

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; citizenship; graham; illegals; immigrants; invasion; jackpotbabies; sc; shutuplindsey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last
Pure political theater on Graham's part. He knows he's in trouble with his conservative base. So, he floats this idea trying to shore up support. Of course, he also knows that such an amendment doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting enacted, short of a Constitutional Convention. For him, it's a political win-win.

Having said that, it's still probably a great debate to have for conservatives going into the 2012 election, especially considering what happened to SB1070 yesterday. It can't be enacted, but the issue is politically beneficial to conservatives.

1 posted on 07/29/2010 8:12:49 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

“Pure political theater on Graham’s part. He knows he’s in trouble with his conservative base.”

True. What really counted was the Kagan vote, and he delivered for his Liberal masters.


2 posted on 07/29/2010 8:16:02 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Graham, Y O U L I E !!!!


3 posted on 07/29/2010 8:17:08 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Lindsey, join McCain and just go away.


4 posted on 07/29/2010 8:18:43 AM PDT by jetson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

When I heard him float the idea on Greta’s show, I nearly fell off the couch.

It was too smart of an idea for a doofus like him.


5 posted on 07/29/2010 8:19:02 AM PDT by Daisyjane69 (Michael Reagan: "Welcome back, Dad, even if you're wearing a dress and bearing children this time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; All

This is pure BS.

This is the same fakiery which they used to block the Federal Marriage Amendment. They wheeled out the bogus flag burning amendment to distract.

ILLEGAL alien birthright citizenship should be stopped.

HOWEVER THE DREAM ACT MAKES ALL BABIES REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP INTO ANCHOR BABIES.

GRAHAM LIES, AMERICANS DIE.


6 posted on 07/29/2010 8:20:18 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Linseed wouldn't bring it up if she thought it had a snowball's chance in Hell of passing.
7 posted on 07/29/2010 8:21:23 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law." -- Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I guess being burned flogged and kicked in effigy a few days ago, he figures he needs to do a little redemption. LMAO!


8 posted on 07/29/2010 8:23:16 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

If we control the borders in the first place far fewer will be born here.


9 posted on 07/29/2010 8:23:26 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Given the chance, he would probably vote against ratification.


10 posted on 07/29/2010 8:23:40 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I think it is time to take a hard look at this. I don’t see a downside at all and it would decrease the illegals coming over by possibly a large amount.

He may not be serious about it, but many of us are.


11 posted on 07/29/2010 8:27:09 AM PDT by texmexis best (My)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
It is easy to champion a cause when one knows that cause will never be enacted. It is difficult to stand up for one's constituents at the precise moment when it is most important.

It was most important to oppose Kagan. Graham buckled and voted for her. It is easy to champion an amendment to do away with birthright citizenship, since it will never happen.

12 posted on 07/29/2010 8:28:24 AM PDT by Guyin4Os (A messianic ger-tsedek)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Someone needs to tell Graham and McCain that it’s best to spread fertilizer in the fall.


13 posted on 07/29/2010 8:29:37 AM PDT by RckyRaCoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Exactly. bttt

Both he and McCain know when and which bones to throw to conservatives so as to fool them into voting for them again. I wish the voters would wise up to it.


14 posted on 07/29/2010 8:31:30 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (BP was founder of Cap & Trade Lobby and is linked to John Podesta, The Apollo Alliance and Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
The 14th Amendment has been mininterpreted.

Go to http://www.14thamendment.us/ for clarification.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

15 posted on 07/29/2010 8:33:27 AM PDT by Retired COB (Still mad about Campaign Finance Reform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

This feels like satire.


16 posted on 07/29/2010 8:37:17 AM PDT by wiggen (Government owned slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
If Jim DeMint, Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachman or an official of similar credibility were to offer such legislation, I'd be joining the chorus. However, if Lindsey Grahamnesty told me the sky was blue, I'd have to look out the window before I believed him.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

17 posted on 07/29/2010 8:54:23 AM PDT by wku man (Steel yourselves, patriots, and be ready. Won't be long now....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Linseed Gayhams puffed a pack of pickled peckers.
If Lindseed picked a peck of puffing pipers,
How many pickled peckers did Linseed Gayhams puff?


18 posted on 07/29/2010 9:12:50 AM PDT by tumblindice (He's just so dishy. I'm going to call him `Moondoggie'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

While they are at it, they need to specifically define natural born citizen, and make sure it applies to the Presidency.


19 posted on 07/29/2010 9:15:08 AM PDT by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The 14th Amendment was never intended to make anchor babies US citizens.
The first line of the 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.” Most readers skip over the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. The US Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, section 301 [8 U.S.C. 1401] states, “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”

Why does everyone ignore the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?

In the US Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
The Court held that, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

The fact is that these anchor babies owe their allegiance to the nation their parents hold citizenship in, and they are subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign nation.

Also, so many times we are told that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the children born to foreign ministers or ambassadors, however in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Supreme Court stated, “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

So, there really is no need for a new Amendment. The 14th Amendment was never meant to apply to anchor babies in the first place.


20 posted on 07/29/2010 10:02:01 AM PDT by chatter4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 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