Posted on 11/01/2018 9:17:48 AM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been critical of Republican efforts to revisit the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, but that seems to have backfired, with rivals saying he once supported the idea himself. The claim has popped up everywhere from the website of the Nevada Republican Party to the Washington Times to a twitter feed from Reid's GOP opponent, Sharon Angle, so we decided to look into it.
Has Reid switched his position on "clarifying" the 14th amendment?
To check, we looked back to August 4, 1993. That's when Reid introduced the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993, a bill that would have, among other things, revoked birthright citizenship. Section 1001, entitled "Basis of Citizenship Clarified," said, in effect, that children born in United States to parents who are illegal immigrants would not become U.S. citizens.
And just in case there was any confusion about the matter, a press release that Reid's office issued a day later states that the bill "clarifies that a person born in the United States to an alien mother who is not a lawful resident is not a U.S. citizen." This clarification would have eliminated the "incentive for pregnant alien women to enter the United States illegally, often at risk to mother and child, for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for the child and accompanying federal financial benefits," said Reid.
Reid encouraged other lawmakers to consider and vote for the bill in a Senate floor speech on September 20, 1993. "While other legislation has been introduced in this session of Congress to address some of the most egregious abuses of our immigration laws, this legislation is the only one that institutes comprehensive reform to the entire process" Reid said. He reiterated his arguments for increased immigration controls in an August 10, 1994, op-ed piece published in the Los Angeles Times. Comparing the United States to a table that is "becoming overcrowded," Reid wrote that "unless changes are made, our dinner table eventually will collapse, and no one will have security and opportunity." The bill ultimately died in committee.
But as they say, past is the past. What is Reid's position today?
Reid was asked about the issue in a press conference on August 3, 2010. He did not answer the question directly but quoted extensively from Michael Gerson, a Washington Post columnist. Gerson wrote a column on July 30, 2010, in which he said that Sen. Lindsey Graham -- a South Carolina Republican who is considering a constitutional amendment to change the birthright citizenship process -- has "either taken leave of his senses or of his principles."
So, in 1993, Reid was clearly for restricting birthright citizenship. He introduced a bill that would have "clarified" the 14th amendment to mean that children of illegal immigrants do not automatically become U.S. citizens at birth. Twenty years later, he seems to be agreeing with Gerson that Republicans have either lost their senses or abandoned their principles.
However, Reid has openly acknowledged his changed position on at least two occasions. In a House floor speech on August 5, 2006, he admitted that the "low point" of his legislative career came when he introduced the "travesty that [he] called legislation" in 1993. The Las Vegas Review-Journal also reported on December 13, 1999, that Reid said that the legislation is "way up high" on his "list of mistakes" and that it was "short-sighted." He added, "I didn't understand the issue. I'm embarrassed that I made such a proposal."
To sum up. Nobody -- not even Reid himself -- is denying that Reid switched his position on "clarifying" the 14th amendment. He wrote a bill in 1993 that would have denied birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. Six years later, he called that bill a mistake. Granted, he apparently regrets introducing the bill, but we wanted to know whether Reid has changed his position. We found that he did, so we rate this a Full Flop.
Harry Reid has learned to love it when he bends over to take it up the shorts from the open borders crowd, we’re bad to not like it too. /s
Somebody pointed out yesterday it was a change in the hotel worker’s Union position that “coincidentally” changed at the same time. When the Union was allowed to Unionize the illegals they changed their position overnight, as did Reid.
The aging circus clown speaketh.
And no one gives a d*mn.
There is perhaps one good reason for birth control.
And future politicians are that reason.
In the politico piece on this Spineless Hairy Reid is quoted as saying he IMMEDIATELY FLIPPED HIS STANCE IN THE 1990s
Hey harry, how’s that eye? ;(
We need to give exercise tread Mills to all the top dims.
:)
This coming from a man who had his legal education paid for by the Mormon Church and got his campaign seed money from Joe Conforti, the guy who once owned the Mustang Ranch Brothel just outside Reno. And an FYI, the Mustang Ranch is long gone, replaced by, you guessed it, the “new town” of Mustang, right next door to the huge Tesla Battery Plant ( currently 3 million square feet, heading for 12 million!
A doubleplussgood bellyfeel party members know Reid has always been in favor of "undocumented immigrants" ...
He got a prison style beat down.
<img src="https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2018/10/gettyimages-74895336_0.jpg?itok=OPHALKhY" width="50%">
Will give you an image that is 50% of the width of the browser's viewing window, no matter what size the window is. Like this:
The image will resize to 50% (or any percentage you choose) automatically as you resize the browser window. Try it.
Alternately, you can choose a width (or height) in pixels to limit the size of an image like this:
<img src="https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2018/10/gettyimages-74895336_0.jpg?itok=OPHALKhY" width="600">;
Gives you a fixed size image no matter how large or small the browser window happens to be, like this:
“Reid bashes Repubs for a position on immigration that he once pushed [memories of the way we were]”
Heck, so did Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Obama...but that was then. They didn’t flip flop, they “evolved”.
He is just practicing his religion, by changing his positions.
The United States Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887) authorizing the seizure of LDS Church assets and making polygamy a federal offense. LDS Church President Wilford W. Woodruff announced in 1890 that the Mormon Church would no longer sanction plural marriages in adherence with the law of the United States.
Until a few decades ago, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught that they “shall be a white and a delightsome people,” a phrase taken from the Book of Mormon. The church barred men of African descent from the lay clergy until 1978, when church leaders had a revelation.
At least grahamesty has sincerely turned over a new leaf, despite his decades of American citizen sons and daughters last votes. And not just for midterms either guys. Plus, he is offering his oven front property in AZ for sale.
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.