President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A year later LBJ signed the Immigration and Nationality Act. At that time the issue of Cuban immigration riled Republicans. Cubans sought refuge and got it. Mexicans are not mentioned. Mexico has never been a communist country.
None the less, Senator Graham argues that the 14th Amendment no longer serves the purpose it was designed to address and that Congress should reexamine granting citizenship to any child born in the United States. “I'm looking at the laws that exist and see if it makes sense today,” Graham has said. “Birthright citizenship doesn't make so much sense when you understand the world as it is.”
Senate Minority Whip Kyl also supports hearings on repealing the 14th Amendment. "The Fourteenth Amendment [has been] interpreted to provide that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what," Kyl has said. What the 14th Amendment says is “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.” How else would one interpret?
Senator McConnell says Congress should reconsider the 14th Amendment citizenship guarantee and joined the immigration bandwagon. “Regardless of how you feel about the various aspects of immigration reform,” McConnell said, “I don't think anybody thinks that's something they're comfortable with."
Evidently these Senators have forgotten their high school civics. Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states. Then the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions. For the record, no convention for proposing amendments has been called by the states and the convention method of ratification been employed only once.
Even as a long shot, which would require super majorities for the GOP in both houses of congress and a Republican administration, there is so much more to gain by repealing the 14th Amendment. It would set the stage for reversal of a treasure trove of Supreme Court decisions. Ones that the GOP has long targeted include: Plyler v. Doe , protecting all children born in the US, Brown v. Board of Education , ending “separate but equal” , and the prize of prizes, Roe v. Wade, extending the right of privacy to abortion.
In Plyler, a “citizenship” case, the Court’s ruling says the Texas statute it found unconstitutional imposed “a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. These children can neither affect their parents' conduct nor their own undocumented status.” Furthermore, “Use of the phrase ‘within its jurisdiction’ confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.”
Article comments
1 - Chlotilde
This article is shockingly bigoted and I'll-informed. It was republicans who passed the 14th amendment and the civil rights act over the objections of democrats. And what the he'll is a "reload"? Do you have any idea how bitter and hatefilled you are?
2 - zingzing
look at the actual vote, chlotilde. northerners outvoted southerners. no southern republicans voted for it, while only a few southern dems voted for it. a better proportion of northern dems voted for it than did northern republicans, but only barely. and the dems were in charge of both house and senate, so there was certainly less to lose in the short term (although in the long term, it was pretty devastating to their chances of being reelected in the south). (and thus was born the republican majority in the south! and the democrats terror of passing meaningful legislation.)
that was a regional divide, not a left-right divide. you can take the raw numbers for their word, and it will look like the republicans were behind civil rights, but it wasn't them. it was the north. plain and simple.
read up on the southern strategy as well.
but do that tomorrow, because it's late and it's a school night. uh.
3 - Ruvy
I see what they mean by "a little education is a dangerous thing" in this article. But at least you left us Jews out of this, Tommy. Thank you.
4 - jeannie danna
Good article! You've made several excellent points, Tommy.
My question is, "Can this country be so blind to the GOP/Conservative/Libertarian/Tea Party agenda, that they will let them repeat it?"
:O Hope not
5 - Arch Conservative
All Republicans and conservatives are racists.........
Gee you're really breaking new ground there Tommy........
The Pulitzer committee called they want to know how where to send the award to......
I'm sure MLK if he were around today would just love the way the Democrat party has made so many blacks so dependent upon the federal government through welfare and other moonbat approved trojan horses.
6 - Tommy Mack
When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he told an aide, "We've just lost the south for two generations.
7 - Tommy Mack
It feels like being in the shadow of a Mosque. I appreciate your commentary. Civil rights, however, seems to have taken a back seat to NYC zoning issue.
8 - Tommy Mack
Oh, by the way, Chlotilde, here is the answer to your question, "And what the he'll is a "reload"?
A reload is what you do with a firearm after you have spent its ammunition -- bullets, rounds, shells.
As to "I'll-informed" (sic), the words in blue are links to more information, not emphasis.
I hope this helps.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
And chlotilde -
Republicans did pass the 14th Amendment...but back then, Republicans were the liberals and Democrats were the conservatives.
In fact, the South was a conservative Democratic bastion until the Civil Rights Act...and suddenly the South turned red. Now why do you think that is?
10 - 14th Amendment
The 14th amendment was intended to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of newly freed slaves. It did this by prohibiting states from denying or abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States