Home / Culture and Society / 14th Amendment Rights Coming Under Fire

14th Amendment Rights Coming Under Fire

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

As I stated in an earlier article and blog, Congress needs to look closely at the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in regards to automatic citizenship to see if the wording is valid today, compared to the times it was passed into law. The Immigration issues being presented by the law passed by the State of Arizona is going to include the 14th Amendment at one point or another, because there is no way that you can deport an undocumented immigrant with a family member born on United States soil.

It is not surprising that the politician who proposed the immigration law approved by the State of Arizona would be bringing the problem to the steps of Congress. Our leaders adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 they did not foresee that the nation that they loved would be forced into deciding whether an individual born in the United States could or could not be a citizen when their parents are not legal.

The law that is going to be diverting attention to the Constitution was introduced by Arizona state senator Russell Pearce and passed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, and allows law enforcement officers to check for proof of citizenship if they suspect that the person detained might be in the country illegally, thus making it a violation of state law.

Senator Pearce now wants it to be declared that children born to illegal immigrants be denied citizenship because of the parents’ status. 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 the state wherein they reside.”

Legislation similar to Sen. Pearce's ideology on citizenship was introduced at the federal level by Rep. Nathan Deal, R-GA, in 2009.  At this time, it is stalled. If Congress does not take on the immigration problem, it perhaps will become one of the biggest issues they have ever faced in their careers. Their action or inaction is going to become a political platform in the near political future.

The immigration problem Not only affects the numbers crossing the border, but the economy as well. Next to slavery, illegal immigrant workers are the cheapest work force in this area of the country, helping the economy with their income and low cost employment. That seems to be California’s biggest concern, other than that their elected officials may have some relatives about to be deported.

Powered by

About jtkindlenam

  • Yeah, they should repel the 14th amendment or might change it..

  • I agree with Cherokee!

  • 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  • SagmlJohn

    I scanned the 14th Amendment on Wikipedia. There is a bullet (probably from a court case) that naturalization is not affective if it is fraudulent. It is pretty open-ended as to what fraud is, but I think that entering the US to have a baby so that the parents can be automatically naturalized is fraud. That simple act can be amended to the 14th.

    • Helen Kimbroug Cousin to Lola

      A registered nurse cousin of mine, working at one of America’s larger more popular hospitals in the maternity ward in Louisianna told me about 55 years ago that there was a huge influx of people from other countries that come to the United States daily
      to have their babies at the hospital where she worked, so that their parents will become Americans through that baby born at that American Hospital. . That is terribly and strictly unfair to Americans and is probably the way Communism was able to sneak in the back door and now we are dealing with their offsprings and a lot of un-American ideas. That only tells that story at only one of America’s hospitals.

  • dh76513

    Until our political leaders understand the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment is the underlying cause of illegal immigration, America’s immigration system will be ineffective. I will not be supporting any political leader who refuses to see any connection between illegally entering the country to give birth and the Fourteenth Amendment. Especially at a time when we have 10% unemployment as these illegal immigrants are devouring social services (Medicaid, food stamps, etc) that should be going to Americans!

  • wizowl

    Hi Cherokee Warrior, about SB 1070, it is on the net so why not google it, i.e. “copy of SB 1070” then press Search. You’re welcome and I agree with all of your comments.

  • James

    I agree 100%. If automatic citizenship is repealed on the grounds that illegal aliens aren’t subject to the law of the land, people have just created another chink in the armor of the Constitution.

    It’s happened with the 1st Amendment before; “certain words are ‘fighting words’ and are likely to cause a fight and therefore aren’t protected. Obscene speech isn’t protected”.

    It’s happened with the 2nd Amendment before; “nobody outside of the military needs an assault rifle so it’s now banned”. And gun control has gotten steadily worse since its inception in the 1930s United States

    And you can go on throuh the rest of the Bill of Rights and make long lists of “exceptions” that the courts have all read into the Amendments. When that happens to even one part of the Constitution, a precedent has been set which allows for interpretation beyond the scope of what’s written in the Constitution itself. Granted, some portions may not be crystal clear, but with a simple study of the laws of the time, the authors, and the language dynamics of the time, it wouldn’t be very hard to determine the origional intention. And essentially, that’s what the Supreme Court is for; to interprete the Constitution and determine if the specific laws being contested are Constitutional or not. But the gradual and steady chipping away at the origional intention has had tremendous effects on the country. If you step back and look at the big picture, it’s pretty obvious.

    Gun control is one example. The origional intent of the founders is pretty clear that there were to be no gun control whatsoever. And look at where we are now; the FBI says that there are over 20,000 federal firearms laws, in addition to the literally
    thousands of state gun laws that regulate everthing from owning machine guns, to magazine capacity limits, to carrying guns, to competency requirements for owning guns, to restricting the size of the guns themselves. There are even laws concerning the color people are “allowed” to make their guns.

    Freedom of speech is another one. The speech clause of the 1st Amendment was intended to protect the offensive speech. The government doesn’t censor speech it likes, it censors speech it doesn’t like. It’s as simple as that. There really is no need to PROTECT speech if the government likes what you’re saying, and if it likes what you’re saying, it won’t try to censor. But the courts have made numerous “public safety” exceptions for “fighting words”.

    The same thing is happening with the 14th Amendment. The government is trying to make exceptions for what’s in the 14th Amendment and is creating a precedent for doing the exact same thing to other parts of the Consitution it doesn’t like.

  • Cannonshop

    #28 Exactly, James. The problem being, when you restrict the constitution, you inevitably set it up for further, more invasive, more intrusive, and more destructive restrictions impacting a wider and wider group of people-and if political tides turn, well…the precedent is set, the rules of engagement likewise set, and the new ‘majority’ can expand that encroachment to target those they do not like.

    We see it all the time with the Courts siding against citizens in property-rights cases like the Kelo decision, and increasingly we see 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment protections reduced by laws like the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1988 and the PATRIOT ACT, the tendency to invent, create, or argue in favour of restricting constitutional protections is there-it’s there in the Religious Right, and in the Radical Left.

    By declaring Illegals to be not-subject-to-the-law, you open the door to a new version of slavery, and you open the door to expanding that “non Citizen” definition gradually but inexorably into creating a kind of Serfdom wherein only the most elite actually enjoy any legal protections at all.

    While such a system may be acceptable in Cuba, or Venezuela, or China, or india, or Russia, it’s not acceptable in the United States, and must NEVER be allowed to become acceptable.

  • James

    @ Warrior
    I think the intention of any proposed action in regards to the 14th Amendment depend on which politician you talk to and when. Some say they want to stop automatic citizenship for ALL children born here, and some say that they want to stop automatic citizenship for children born here if their parents are illegal aliens.

    And actually, I think that if any laws were made based on the second school of thought, it would create a pretty significant precedent. For example, if the illegal alien parents aren’t subject to the jurisdiction to the laws of the nation, they wouldn’t have any Consitutional protections at all. I mean, when you think about it, what logical argument is there for applying parts of the Constitution to illegal aliens, and not other parts? Why should illegal aliens have the Constitutional protection to freedom of speech, when he doesn’t have 14th Amendment protections? According to some, illegal aliens aren’t subject to the laws of the nation, and therefore their children aren’t automatically citizens even though born here. Logically, you must conclude that other Constitutional protections afforded to people subject to the laws of the nation don’t apply to illegal aliens. That would mean that the government can treat them however they want, and nobody has any reason to disagree with that if they agree with stopping automatic citizenship for children of illegal aliens born here.

  • Cherokee Warrior

    @ Cannonshop
    Remember they are not talking about a repeal of the 14th Amendment. No one has said repel, only to define that illegals due to their status as illegal aliens are not citizens and not subject to the laws of the nation and state; therefore the rule of citizenship under the 14th Amendment does not apply to their children born in the U.S. (in this case Arizona) because they, the parents are not covered by the jurisdiction thereof.
    It has been brought up in this discussion that there is no draft of the proposal out at this time so everything is just speculation and he said she said rhetoric (best guess). But no repel has been mentioned by lawmakers.

  • Cannonshop

    The fourteenth amendment is still necessary-and likely will always BE necessary. As much as many of my fellow citizens disgust and alarm me with their ignorance, they ARE citizens.

    Repeal of the fourteenth could very well change that, allowing, just as a for-instance, the eventual taking of citizenship rights from minorities or those whose politics do not conform to the majority.

    (and don’t think it ain’t possible, kids, the steady encroachment of government violations of civil rights, including speech-codes, gun-control, encroachment by “Faith” organizations, and the PATRIOT ACT argue otherwise.)

    Whenever you restrict or amend someone else’s rights, you are doing it to yourself, whenever you permit takings from others because they’re not on-top today, you expose yourself to takings when you become the minority.

    The douchebags responsible for these bills don’t understand the mushroom-cloud they’re going to release on themselves should their fiddling be successful, nor do they understand the mushroom-cloud potential for the rights of OTHER citizens should they succeed.

  • Cherokee Warrior

    I agree that laws dealing with citizenship in the past, like the Snyder Act for Native Americans is not the same as someone that came into our country by breaking our laws (They are illegals not undocumented). To be a U.S. citizen when our Constitution was written you had to be a land owner. It was a restriction on who could be granted citizenship with the rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen. My point by mentioning these citizenship laws was to point out that this is not the first case of restricting citizenship for various reasons in U.S. history.

    If a new bill has not been drafted yet on the issue of not granting citizenship to the children of illegals then we can only speculate on what it will say. It may have a provision that those after a certain date will no longer be granted U.S. Citizenship.

  • Clavos

    Aint modern life great! Well, it is if you’re rich and powerful.

    Or smart…

  • John Wilson

    Anyone who is outraged that a Mexican sneaks into the USA and participates in our propitious environment, should also wonder that an investor from Mexico can buy shares and ownership freely in an “American” company and thereby bribe US public officials (ala SCOTUS) as well as receive corporate welfare from US taxpayers. At the same time, employing the benefits of easy international banking and lenient tax policies he can establish a residence in, say, Andorra, and avoid US taxes and all other responsibility.

    Aint modern life great! Well, it is if you’re rich and powerful.

  • James

    I agree, not all Indians live on reservations. But the reservations are still considered sovereign nations. Right or wrong, that’s how it is. And that’s why thay law was passed to make Indians US citizens. It’s not quite the same as dealing with illegal immigration. A more similar comparrison would be if the United States took over Mexico and then passed a law stating that all Mexicans are now US citizens.

    No, I don’t think that Arizona is trying to repeal the 14th Amendment. But essentially, what they’re doing is eliminating automatic citizenship for children born in the US. Citizens can’t be deported. But again, eliminating automatic citizenship would create a whole lot more problems than it’s supposed to solve.

    As far as I know, according to an interview from June 14 with the Senator starting this, they haven’t drafted anything yet. He’s only said that he want’s to force the federal government to stop automatic citizenship, but hasn’t actually drafted any legislation yet.

    I agree about reading SB 1070, though. I’ve heard so much speculation, and many outright lies about what the law says; it’s pathetic. Even the US Attorney General Eric Holder has been critizing the law, but hasn’t bothered to read it yet. To anyone who hasn’t read it yet: Go read the actual text of the law before you bitch about how unfair or discriminatory it is. You have no standing to complain about it if you haven’t read it.

  • Cherokee Warrior

    @ James
    Many would say that each state is sovereign and defend their belief by pointting to the X Amendment. Not all Indians live on reservations. I have never lived on one. The 5 Civilized Tribes lost their reservation land during the Civil War when they sided with the CSA. Spoils of war, when you lose a war you lose more than the war.

    I do not see this as Arizon trying to repeal the 14th Amendment. I see it as they are trying to define which powers they are giving to the Federal govrenment under the Constitution. No citizen would be deported and you cannot make a low retro active it would only apply to after the law would go into effect.

    I would also ask everyone to read Arizona SB 1070 pay attention to Section 4. I don’t see anyone that could be against this section. Section 6 is aimed at those who knowingly employ “Unauthorized aliens.” Everything has to be varified with Federal Immigration and only those who do not meet Federal Immigration 8 USA Code Section 1373(c) is turned over to Federal immigration for enforcement of the laws of the United States.

    If anyone knows where I can get a copy of the proposed SB that deals with the 14th Amendment I would like to read that as well.

  • @James, thanks you.

  • James

    I understand you point of view. I think that whether deportation or incarceration is best is beyond the scope this discussion. But essentially, the effect on the citizen children of illegal aliens would still be the same: separation. Overall, I think that repealing or ammending the 14th Amendment is the wrong approach because it would create more problems than it’s supposed to solve. There would be no positive net effect in stopping the alledged problems that automatic citizenship creates, but it would create even more problems because it would place a huge burden on the immigration system by suddenly exponentially increasing the number of applicants. In addition to that, it would create problems of inequality in the criminal justice system because it’s not fair that someone can get away with a crime simply because a bunch of bleeding heart liberals don’t want to upset the family. Although I do agree that if the parents send their children to foster care or adoption it would burden the system, I think that it would be a much, much smaller burden than both options of repealing automatic citizenship or not deporting/inprisoning illegal aliens.

    Actually, the Arizona immigration law doesn’t require anyone to show law enforcement an ID. All it says is that an Arizona state certified peace officer can inquire about a person’s immigration status with the federal immigration authorities. It does not require anyone to carry, produce, or otherwise do anything with an ID. State laws concerning carrying or producing an ID to police officers may say something else, but that specific law doesn’t. And federal immigration laws may require a legal alien to carry and/or show an ID to the police. I’m not sure.

  • I do understand what you are saying, James, and I agree with you that a crime is a crime and separation is separation. Here a crime is committed, so what is the difference between deporting and going to prison? Just you watch ‘big brother’, he is going to see about tampering with the 14th Amendment and family unity will be one of the major factors in deciding whether to repeal, supplement or revise. Whichever is constitutional.

    Keep in mind that I am not a law or political major/professional, but just a concerned citizen and I am learning a heck of a lot researching and gathering information. Most people do not even consider what is involved with an issue like immigration, hell; they become interested mostly when it affects them directly. Most of the time I am a member of this group.

    I would support prosecuting the crime, send them home with the family intact, because if the children are placed in the system then there will be a financial burden on our society we would have to bear, but this would violate the child’s birth rights. Either way it goes, someone is going to be upset. I would look at a way to narrow the 14th’s scope by revision and then enforce it instead of allowing it to continue unchecked. Better yet, enforce what we have now.

    Correct me if I am off base, but isn’t the Arizona immigration law requirement of proof of citizenship the same as in, say Europe, where if stopped you are required to show either a military I.D. and/or passport to prove that you are in the country legally? Is this not also, though not enforced, a requirement here where if citizenship is in question of someone already being detained to check to see if they are here legally?

  • James

    I don’t know what the conditions would be. They could range from general population control to controling reproduction of criminals to creating a population of specific types of people (black, white, male, female, etc). As it is now, we don’t have to worry about that because anyone born here is automatically a citizen. They would also have to figure out what happens IF the child is denied citizenship. Their country of origin is the US, so they can’t be deported anywhere. But something must be done with them if they’re not granted citizenship. If not, why bother repealing automatic citizenship? If you’re born here you can stay because you’re automatically a citizen. But if automatic citizenship is repealed, you would end up staying here anyways even if you didn’t become a citizen because there’s no place to deport you do.

    No, he never said anything about deporting a citizen. But the entire underlying argument of repealing automatic citizenship is that if illegal aliens have children here, we can’t deport the parents because we can’t tear up the family. The extra problems that would be created by repealing automatic citizenship alone are enough to not do that. But if it did happen, we might as well repeal the immigration laws because what we’re essentially saying is “if you come and have your children here we’ll let you get away with a crime”. It’s not fair to everyone else in this country who have to get punished for their crimes even though their families may be torn apart. That’s just one of the risks you take when you commit crimes. It’s one of the consequences. And it’s not like we’re forcing the parents to take their children with them. We’re not stopping them from putting the children up for adoption, or into foster care. Nor are we stoping them from sending money back here to the US to pay someone to care for their children. We’re letting people go unpunished for committing crimes on the grounds that it’s mean to the family. But it would have the exact same effect if the illegal aliens went to prison; they’d be away from their families. In fact, that exact same thing happens all the time when people go to prison here in the US.

  • John Wilson

    Changing laws around will probably accomplish nothing.

    What’s happening is a change in the idea of ‘sovereignty’. It’s less and less possible for any country or government to enforce traditional ideas of sovereignty. Not just at the bottom where immigrants invade, either. It’s also happening at the top as businesses and powerful people free themselves of the bonds of sovereignty so that they can have it both ways: they can remove themselves from citizen responsibility such as taxes while still enjoying privileges.

    We better figure out new legal ideas of sovereignty pretty soon.

  • @James, under what condition do you believe a child born in the U.S. would be denied citizenship and/or be deported? In order for the child to be denied citizenship or a visa, I would think that would be determined more by the parents’ resident status, and at this present point in time, who knows what ‘big brother’ is thinking?

    The article’s author never said anything about deporting a citizen, but rather (first para, last sentence) “. . .
    there is no way that you can deport an undocumented immigrant with a family member born on United States soil.” This is in reference to the parent’s illegal status causing a family unit to be separated when the child is legal. They would have to consider that and the points you have made when they tackle this issue.

    @John, true repealing the 14th Amendment would not have no meaning unless the new Amendment that repeals the current one, is structured to replace the old resolving the points we all have mentioned in the comments. The biggest part of making it happen would be the problem we have now – enforcement. This is just my thoughts.

  • John Wilson

    The net effect of revoking 14 would just be an increase of illegals. Nothing accomplished.

  • James

    @ Cherokee Warroir:
    Indians reservations are considered sovereign countries. Really when you think about it, it doesn’t make any sense. They’re sovereign nations which are exempt from our taxes, can seek refuge on a reservation when they’ve committed crimes. But they’re protected by our military and get special treatment by the government. Arguments about Native Indians really don’t apply because the laws were different, they’re not foreign nationals illegally entering our country.

    And nobody has even attempted to answer my question. What happens if the child is denied citizenship? Will he be granted legal alien status? Or will he be deported? And if he’s deported, where?

  • “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject the jurisdiction thereof”

    Yet another bit of the Constitution that’s not clearly written and causes a whole bunch of arguments.

    Seems partly tautologous to me, on the face of it: how can you be naturalized and not be subject to US jurisdiction?

  • Cherokee Warrior

    By the way Native Americans were not considered citizens until 1924 by the Snyder Act. I remember my grandfather taking great pride in voting in each election because much of his life he was not a citizen of the U.S and was a WWI veteran. The Snyder Act granted citizenship to about 125,000 of 300,000 indigenous people in the United States because they were not citizens. The 14th Amendment excluded the Cherokee and other Native Americans. Even Native Americans, who were granted citizenship rights under the 1924 Act, may not have had full citizenship and suffrage rights until 1948. According to a survey by the Department of Interior, seven states still refused to grant Indians voting rights in 1938. Discrepancies between federal and state control provided loopholes in the Act’s enforcement.

    Other immigration/naturalization/citizenship laws that seem to have slipped our minds or history knowledge:

    The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act banned Chinese workers and specifically barred them from naturalization. The Immigration Act of 1917, (Barred Zone Act) extended those restrictions to almost all Asians.

    The 1922 Cable Act specified that women marrying aliens ineligible for naturalization lose their US citizenship. At the time, all Asians were ineligible for naturalization. The Immigration Act of 1924 barred entry of all those ineligible for naturalization, which again meant non-Filipino Asians.

    Following the Spanish American War in 1898, Philippine residents were classified as US nationals. But the 1934 Tydings-McDuffie Act, or Philippine Independence Act, reclassified Filipinos as aliens, and set a quota of 50 immigrants per year, and otherwise applying the Immigration Act of 1924 to them. The quotas did not apply to Filipinos who served in the United States Navy, which actively recruited in the Philippines at that time.

    Asians were first permitted naturalization by the 1943 Magnuson Act, which repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act. India and the Philippines were allowed 100 annual immigrants under the 1946 Filipino Naturalization Act. The War Brides Act of 1945 permitted soldiers to bring back their foreign wives and established precedent in naturalization through marriage.

    The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (better known as the McCarran-Walter Act), lifted racial restrictions, but kept the quotas in place. The Immigration Act of 1965 finally allowed Asians and all persons from all nations be given equal access to immigration and naturalization.

    Illegal immigration became a major issue in the US at the end of the 20th century. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, while tightening border controls, also provided the opportunity of naturalization for illegal aliens who had been in the country for at least four years. This was under Ronald Reagan few illegals chose to become citizens. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk free.

    The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 streamlined the naturalization process for children adopted internationally. A child under age 18 who is adopted by at least one U.S. citizen parent, and is in the custody of the citizen parent(s), is now automatically naturalized once admitted to the United States as an immigrant or when legally adopted in the United States, depending on the visa under which the child was admitted to the U.S.

  • Cherokee Warrior

    You have to read the 14th Amendment to know what it says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…” The key phrase is, “and subjects the jurisdiction thereof”. If they are illegal’s they are outside the jurisdiction because they have broken the law of the land to get here, therefore this Amendment does not apply. They also cannot be legal residence because they are illegal and cannot hold legal residence. If they want to come to the United States good for them. We live in the greatest nation on earth and one where everyone can have freedom to choose but have them come legally within the scope of our laws. If you break the law you are a criminal (sorry but they are). That is the definition of illegal, something that is against the law. They are not undocumented they are illegal and broke immigration laws to get here so they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof and should not be grated the privileges of legal jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state or constitution .
    If we do not get control of this illegal flow of criminals we will lose our land and our nation. Look at all the criminal activity associated with this. It is a security issue and threatens the sovereignty of our nation. They bring trash and leave it on property, they can and do bring in drugs, many are criminal in their own country and fleeing justice, many are not Mexican but there are many from Central America, Iraq, Iran, China, India, Pakistan, so it is not just illegal’s from Mexico but a pipeline for illegal’s and subservices crossing the southern border.
    Ask yourself why the President of Mexico has such an interest in seeing that his people leave Mexico (yes here I am speaking specifically about Mexicans) and come to the United States. There are three reasons I know of 1) he does not see these people as citizens of Mexico because they are not Castilian. They are poor people who the government of Mexico has or cannot provide for so if they are in the United States they are not a burden on his government. 2) The illegal’s send money back to families in Mexico which boost the economy of Mexico. 3) Many are criminals involved with drug cartels and other gang and gangster type activities if they leave Mexico he no longer has that criminal element to deal with in his country.
    I support Arizona and wish them the best. I only wish my state would have the nerve to stand up like they have.
    My ancestors allowed in illegal’s and just look what happened to their land.

  • James

    The author of the article is wrong from the very begining. By law, you can’t be deported if you’re a citizen. But that does NOT mean that illegal aliens can’t be deported. In the case of citizen children of illegal aliens, the parents should have to choices: You can take your children with you or you can leave them here. If you leave them here, you can put them up for adoption, foster care, or (if you have any) leave them with a reletive who’s legal. Can you imagine how flooded the system would be if every parent in the United States had to apply for citizenship for their newborn children? That would be in addition to all the applications for citizenship in the system from immigrants. And what happens if the child is denied citizenship? He’ll either have to apply for legal alien status or he’ll be deported. Really the only argument for repealing automatic citizenship is that we shouldn’t tear apart families. Well, that’s a risk that people take when they come here illegally. I suppose now we’re going to stop sending convicted robbers to prison because they have children and we certainly can’t tear the family apart, right? Where would it end? The supposed reason for not deporting illegal aliens with citizen children is that we can’t tear the family apart, right? What about people who are sentenced to prison for robbery, rape, perjury, drug convictions, or any number of crimes? As it is now, deported aliens aren’t barred for life from applying for citizenship. That means that they could be here legally eventually; just like a parent sentenced to prison for a crime would eventually be out of prison and would be with his children.

  • Reality

    The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with immigration — it was about making freed slaves, citizens. The authors stated that the 14th Amendment would never apply to aliens. Nowhere has the U.S. ever passed law in favor of granting automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. Case closed.

    No repeal needed. Simply a declaration by the Congress, operating under it’s Plenary Power over immigration, will suffice.

  • I think this will play out in a real, reality show, as in the past. Arizona will enforce SB1070 and SB2162 that amended it. Obama will stay true to form with his “Trust me” appeals, “Everything will return to normal.” But, he will remain a pussycat and do nothing, not call out the troops to uphold the 14th amendment. Arizona will have created the slippery-slope to disorder.

    And, not only will have Wall Street, the mortgage comapnies, the banks, and the auto manufacturers blackmailed the Feds, but Arizona will also have blackmailed the federal government. “Make my day” will be their cry.

  • william Padula

    Illeagel is Illeagel that means any thing
    they do in this country is Illeagel

  • Clavos

    …especially if the touchy-feely action will result in more democrat voters, by all means, go for it…

  • Jordan Richardson

    we got all touchy-feely…

    I agree.

    I hate that touchy-feely compassionate stuff. What do we think we talking about here, anyway? Human beings? Hardly.

  • Cannonshop

    Hate to say it, but the solution is one that existed in the eras before we got all touchy-feely…

    Orphanages. Your parents are illegal? congratulations young democratic voter, you’re a ward of the state.

    Which is fundamentally superior to repealing the 14th Amendment.

  • Indeed. I don’t believe that what Pearce wants is even possible without repealing the 14th Amendment and that’s going to be a very, very hard thing to do.


  • joe

    they need to repeal the 14th amendment or change it. This is possible as the 18th amendment was repealed in 1933.