Public evenly split on changing 14th amendment?

[babylonsister]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/public_evenly_split_on_amendin.html


Public evenly split on changing 14th amendment?

An amazing finding, just in from CNN:

As you may know, the Constitution says that all children born in the United States are automatically U.S. citizens regardless of their parents' status. Would you favor or oppose a Constitutional amendment to prevent children born here from becoming U.S. citizens unless their parents are also U.S. citizens?

Favor 49%

Oppose 51%

No opinion 1%

The public is just about evenly split on whether to repeal birthright citizenship. Hey, what's another Constitutional amendment between friends, anyway?

Perhaps this reflects frustration with the government's failure to solve the illegal immigration problem. Or perhaps the decision by some GOP officials to openly flirt with changing the 14th amendment is succeeding in legitimizing the idea. Or maybe both those factors are combining to produce a toxic result: The mainstreaming of ideas that by any measure should be dismissed as extreme by public officials and voters alike.

Oh, one other result in the poll: A solid majority, 60 percent, favors the $26 billion in aid for teachers. A majority of independents, 57 percent, also favors it. Only Republicans oppose it.

By Greg Sargent

[DJ13]

1. Supporting illegal immigration is a losing strategy with many voters

I dont know why that isnt acknowledged by our party, but its true.

[vi5]

6. So the 14th amendment was put into place in 1868...

..to support illegal immigration?

Really? That's what it's about?

[DJ13]

9. No, but thats the main thrust of it today considering slaves arent legal

[vi5]

15. It's not a matter of "supporting illegal immigration"

as it is our side just not being able to communicate worth a damn on any major issue, and in this case it would be explaining the degree to which this issue itself has been inflated exponentially to the point of fear mongering. It would be explaining that the way to deal with it would not be modifying the constitution for such a comparatively miniscule problem, but making harsher punishment for those who hire illegals and make it appealing for them to be here in the first place.

Of course "our side" is content to just watch the right get out there, talk about something ad nauseum, spray their bile all over an entire debate, wait to see how the public reacts, and then come out with mealy mouthed statements and positions that do nothing.

So yeah. What I mean to say is it's a bit more complicated than our side supporting illegal immigration.

[blondeatlast]

21. +1000. nt

[Bitwit1234]

28. Why hasn't the fact that Romney should be named illegal then

his grandparents were not citizens of this country his father was born in Mexico. What does that make Mitt. He can't run for president either if he had illegals for a father.

[mmonk]

16. Who supports illegal immigration?

[Lance_Boyle]

27. Anyone who would offer amnesty to illegals for expediency's sake. n/t

[mmonk]

34. Is the 14th amendment expedient?

[XemaSab]

37. Supporting illegal immigration is a winning issue with politicians, though

Virtually the entire food industry is built on the backs of illegal workers. Big ag won't allow meaningful change in immigration reform.

[TheKentuckian]

38. A child born in this nation is not by any definition illegal or an immigrant.

They are natural born citizens of the United States of America with all of the rights and privileges that status conveys and came to it as honestly as you or your parents.

The whole concept is born of racisim, a mad scramble to maintain white privilege, and first magnitude classism. This same shit happens with every wave of immigration and with every group that isn't of the "cream" of western Europe.

[vi5]

2. Once again we let the republicans dictate the terms.....

Democrats (and the media of course) allowed them to yammer on for weeks about this subject (which prior to that NOBODY was talking about it or could even probably identify the 14th amendment). Meanwhile "our side" had nobody out there countering this bullshit or presenting the opposing side.

[NC_Nurse]

3. Most people don't really understand the consequences. They think this will

Only effect illegal immigrants. Just another reminder of the short attention span and lack of critical thinking that has come to characterize much of the American public. Sad.

[Lance_Boyle]

7. Who else would it affect besides illegal aliens seeking to drop anchor in the US?

:shrug:

OK, I guess maybe legal tourists who happen to be in-country near their due date would not get the benefit of a US citizen child, but how often does that happen?

[mmonk]

17. Children who have grown up here and know no other life.

Imagine if you were one? Would your citizenship be revoked?

[Lance_Boyle]

25. No ex post facto laws, so no, citizenship would not be revoked. n/t

[anigbrowl]

39. So you're saying that changing the constitution would be limited by...the constitution

The guarantee that there will be no ex post facto laws? from the constitution. The 14th amendment...to the constitution. Just because one came before the other does not mean anything legally, all constitutional rules are on the same legal plane. So you could substitute 'No child born of a non-US citizen can be a citizen, notwithstanding article 1 section 10,' and make millions of people illegal on the spot.

[sinkingfeeling]

23. I kind of like the idea by Harold Meyerson in today's Washington Post.

Since it was put into place to allow those who fought a treasonous war against the USA to regain their citizenship and that of their children, maybe if it's eliminated, we can revoke the citizenship of Confederate descendants.

"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."



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

[Lance_Boyle]

26. Um, Meyerson has it way wrong.

Birthright citizenship was intended to ensure that the children of former slaves were recognized as citizens, not children of the Confederacy. When his premise is so blatantly wrong, I don't think there's any need to read further.

[anigbrowl]

40. Incorrect

Meyerson does not claim the 14th amendment restored the Confederates' right to vote, but refers to that as part of Reconstruction in general. Regarding voting rights for the armies of the South, he means the Amnesty Acts, which gave Confederate soldiers back the right to vote, hold office, recover property and so on.

[NC_Nurse]

30. Everybody who gives birth in the U.S. willl have to prove their citizenship.

How else can they enforce this. Show me your papers will be the new rule in the delivery rooms of America. That's what we need, more bullshit paperwork to deal with in the hospital. Ifnyou don't have your proof of citizenship at the time of the birth, what kind of clusterf@ck do you think you will be dealing with after the fact?

[EC]

31. The 14th Amendment deals with the rights of citizens

so it affects more than immigrants...it affects blacks, women and gays also - Due process and equal protections under the law...

The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving people (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive rights and procedural rights.



The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.


It also provides for our Representation in Congress i.e. the number per state and prevents disinfranchisement of voting rights.

There's a lot more to it then immigration.

[Lance_Boyle]

32. And nobody is suggesting any change to #14 other than birthright citizenship

which makes me wonder what the point of your post was.

[EC]

33. They are talking about doing away with the whole

amendment...what's your point?

[Lance_Boyle]

36. That is not true. Cite?

Nobody talks about "doing away with" the 14th. There is some discussion of amending it to get rid of birthright citizenship.

[mmonk]

35. I associate the term anchor babies with racists such as Russell Pearce.

[WinkyDink]

4. I'd believe this one: "50% of public do not know what an 'amendment' is, let alone what the 14th one

states."

[leftofcool]

12. +1000

[rucky]

14. +1

People would change their minds if they knew what went into changing the Constitution.

[AndyA]

5. The problem isn't illegal immigration, it's employers who take advantage of illegals immigrants.

They are the ones we should be going after. If there are no jobs, people won't be so likely to try to sneak into the country.

We should streamline the immigration process, make it quicker, less costly, and let those who want to become citizens become citizens.

And we should go after the people who take advantage of those who are willing to work for so little, because they know they can.

Everybody deserves a fair chance, and equal opportunities. The system we have now is ripe for abuse.

Aren't most "Americans" immigrants anyway?

[KansDem]

22. Agreed...

If those who employ illegal immigrants are fined and imprisoned, the "problem" with illegal immigration would disappear overnight.

[JonLP24]

8. I swear

The first person I hear recently even bring this up is Russell Pearce. He got some legislation passed that made national news such as guns in bars, no need to get a permit for conceal carry, the SB1070, and now this is picking up steam in the national press. How can a State Senator from my district cause so much shit in little time.

[marginlized]

10. They're really after Due Process and Equal Protection n/t

[mmonk]

18. True.

[hfojvt]

11. the amazing thing to me

is that 51% oppose. That has been consistent now for a decade too.

"ideas that by any measure should be dismissed as extreme"

that's sort of a funny category. Where can we find these measures?

[JustAnotherGen]

13. Same old same old

Some people are 'more equal' than others. I in no way shape or form support this bullsh*t idea.

[pampango]

19. Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081004586_pf.html

As Lindsey Graham and his fellow Republicans explain it, their sudden turn against conferring citizenship on anyone born in the United States was prompted by the mortal threat of "anchor babies" -- the children of foreigners who scurry to the States just in time to give birth to U.S. citizens.

The Republican war on the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is indeed directed at a mortal threat -- but not to the American nation. It is the threat that Latino voting poses to the Republican Party.

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.

Absent a constitutional change -- to a lesser degree, even with it -- those prospects look mighty bleak. The demographic base of the Republican Party, as Ruy Teixeira demonstrates in a paper released by the Center for American Progress this summer, is shrinking as a share of the nation and the electorate. As the nation grows more racially and religiously diverse, Teixeira shows, its percentage of white Christians will decline to just 35 percent of the population by 2040.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repubs used to rely on the repeated use of the term "amnesty" to fire up its base and stop any discussion of comprehensive reform. They must have felt the need (pressure from teabaggers this election cycle) to add "anchor babies" to their list of emotionally charged terms that they can throw into the discussion.

Since they will undoubtedly use immigration as a wedge issue again in 2012, I wonder if they already have a focus group working on new buzz words for the next election cycle.

[sinkingfeeling]

20. Here's a link to the complete poll of 1,009 people ....

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/11/rel11a1a.pdf


Here's another good one:

Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their
marriage recognized by law as valid?

Aug. 6-10
2010
Yes 52%
No 46%
No opinion 2%

[ThomWV]

24. 50% of the Public don't have a clue what the 14th, or any other, Amendment says.

[arbusto_baboso]

29. This is why we don't put issues of rights up to a vote.

Or shouldn't, anyway.