Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment by Harold Meyerson

[sinkingfeeling]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081004586.html

<snip>

By proposing to revoke the citizenship of the estimated 4 million U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants -- and, presumably, the children's children and so on down the line -- Republicans are calling for more than the creation of a permanent noncitizen caste. They are endeavoring to solve what is probably their most crippling long-term political dilemma: the racial diversification of the electorate. Not to put too fine a point on it, they are trying to preserve their political prospects as a white folks' party in an increasingly multicolored land.

By pushing for repeal of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, the GOP appears to have concluded: If you can't win them over -- indeed, if you're doing everything in your power to make their lives miserable -- revoke their citizenship.

So, the question for Lindsey Graham is: Are you serious about revoking the citizenship of 4 million children, their children and their children's children? How about a package deal: Stripping their citizenship in return for stripping the citizenship of Confederate descendants. A sort of Missouri Compromise for our times. Bipartisanship in action.

Senator, let me know what you think.

[Bitwit1234]

1. Why do you have to bring the Conferderate descendants in to this

what war was fought, that the ones who lost were cut off from every being a part of the winning state. This is a stupid statement and you should retract it. Members of the Confederate Army were drafted to fight the war. Why blame a descendant for what SOME AND I SAY SOME, because all people in the South did not condone slavery, but since they were drafted they fought. Some people make statements they don't know the damn first thing about.

[unblock]

5. the author didn't bring it in, the republicans did, and the author's proposal is not a serious one.

the 14th amendment was a direct consequence of the civil war, as was its specific provision to ensure that descendents of anyone (former slaves, former confederates, or otherwise) would be citizens. when the republicans talk about modifying this, they are bringing up a whole lot of crap from that era.

the author's is clearly opposed to modifying the amendment at all, and just advanced the tongue-in-cheek proposal to let the republicans get their "descendents of illegal immigrants shouldn't be citizens" crap in exchange for "confederate descendents shouldn't be citizens" crap. it's not meant as a serious proposal. on the contrary, it's a reductio ad absurdum proposal -- meant to show how ridiculous the republican's original idea was in the first place.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. You do know that I'm not Harold Meyerson, right? That OP's in this forum are editorials & other

articles?

[MadMaddie]

2. The OP is actually on to something

lets disregard the Conferederate Soldiars descendents..

Who else could be impacted if the 14th Amendment were to be repealed?

That's right Black Americans.....

This wouldn't be an unintended consequence......I think they are devious and hateful.

[Raven]

3. Slippery slope...if you are not a "citizen" you can't vote...if I don't

like your looks,sexual orientation, politics or religion, I'll just further undermine the 14th...after all, it's been amended once so it is not sacrosanct.

[unblock]

7. poppy bush once said he didn't know if atheists should be citizens

i can't believe how rotten elements can reach the highest levels of power in this country. they don't believe in basic civics, anything like the vision of the founders, the bill of rights, none of it. yet they have held and still hold massive power.

[gels]

4. Actually, I believe

that the rethugs would use this against ANYONE they wanted to get rid of. After there a still a lot of people in this country whose parents were born in Europe etc, and the left during the wars.

[starroute]

8. What gets me about the GOP proposal is the enforcement issue

In the case of an unmarried immigrant mother, how do you prove whether the father was a citizen or not? Do you resort to Jerry Springer-style antics where the woman names possible fathers and you haul them in for DNA testing? And at whose expense?

Or what if a woman claims she cheated on her non-citizen husband and the real father of her baby is a US citizen? Do you test for that, too?

Or that she got drunk at a party and has no idea who the father is but he could be a citizen.

For that matter, if there really are women trying to have an "anchor baby" to stay in the US, I could theoretically see sperm banks selling "US citizen sperm."

In other words, they're proposing to replace a simple, easily proven standard -- where the baby was born -- with one that is convoluted, expensive, and at times almost impossible to enforce.

And that in itself suggests to me that either they're not really serious but are just looking for an election issue -- or else that they have ambitions of imposing the most draconian "guilty unless proven innocent" standard possible.

[Tutankhamun]

9. Watch as the term "anchor baby" is all of a sudden repeated in the conservative/MSM echo chamber

incessantly. This term will be used A LOT in the near future. The right will drill this label into our heads because the well-being of infants and children is often brought up in defense of the 14th Amendment (and immigrants in general).

It would be nice for the Republicans if they could somehow demonize babies, but that's such a reprehensible tactic that they have to be covert about it. The idea is that the baby of an immigrant isn't really a baby. No sir, it's an "anchor." Like a giant metal hook thrown overboard to stop a ship from floating away. It's not a real "baby." Its parents don't love it. It's an "anchor." A pawn. A tool.

What kind of "anchor" takes 21 years before it can even possibly begin working towards securing the ship?