• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP leader McConnell: Fourteenth Amendment is in need of review

This has nothing to do with Republicans or the Republican party (R.I.P.). It has to do with far too many conservatives who have earned those labels through their idiotic pronouncements, rampant bigotry and bald faced deceits. Honestly, haven't you been paying attention at all to the last thirty years in this country? This attack on the fourteenth amendment is just their latest salvo in their reactionary aggression against America.

Looks like your answer to his questions are 1) "no" and 2) "yes."
 
Your added context changes nothing.

Sure it does. He apologized for wanting to close the border, not for his thoughts on birthright citizenship. They're not in any way the same thing.
 
It's like Harry Reid never happened.

It's as if Harry Reid was never the center of this story in the first place. Wow! Surprise, surprise! Conservatives deflecting attention from their embarrassing attacks on American heritage. Imagine that.

Within the immigration debate, so-called “anchor babies” are pretty much a non-issue. For such a child to affect the immigration status of their parents, they must be 21-years old. Using a baby ‘dropped’ in this country in such a way represents a 22-plus-year conspiracy to get legal status. How nefarious! Such foresight!

This thread is about yet another meaningless gesture to garner populist support by political opportunists. And, why not? Politics is about opportunism if it is about nothing else.

Attacking birthright citizenship feels good despite providing no real hope for progress on immigration issues. Changing the Constitution will take years and achieve nothing significant; even, make things worse. Thank you, Senator Lindsey Graham.

So many conservatives are terrible hypocrites. They tell us they want to take our country back; but, far from ‘conserving’ what we inherited, they want to take us back to a country that never was, a meaner country, a nastier country. It's as if they were telling us that they have to destroy the country in order to save it. No, thanks, conservatives, no thanks.
 
Last edited:
It's as if Harry Reid was never the center of this story in the first place. Wow! Surprise, surprise! Conservatives deflecting attention from their embarrassing attacks on American heritage. Imagine that.

Within the immigration debate, so-called “anchor babies” are pretty much a non-issue. For such a child to affect the immigration status of their parents, they must be 21-years old. Using a baby ‘dropped’ in this country in such a way represents a 22-plus-year conspiracy to get legal status. How nefarious! Such foresight!

This thread is about yet another meaningless gesture to garner populist support by political opportunists. And, why not? Politics is about opportunism if it is about nothing else.

Attacking birthright citizenship feels good despite providing no real hope for progress on immigration issues. Changing the Constitution will take years and achieve nothing significant; even, make things worse. Thank you, Senator Lindsey Graham.

So many conservatives are terrible hypocrites. They tell us they want to take our country back; but, far from ‘conserving’ what we inherited, they want to take us back to a country that never was, a meaner country, a nastier country. It's as if they were telling us that they have to destroy the country in order to save it. No, thanks, conservatives, no thanks.

Yes, Chappy, and I'm sure you got every bit as incensed at Harry Reid during the 13 years between his introduction of legislation to take away birthright citizenship and his apology after being confronted with it. I'll just bet you did.

Points for actually staying in the thread and responding to posts for once, though.
 
Wow! Yet another conservative offers another off topic contribution to the thread. It's as if the Sun rose in the East two days in a row. It's a total surprise! Maybe they too are recognizing the shamefulness of conservative leadership's assault on the fourteenth amendment.
 
Wow! Yet another conservative offers another off topic contribution to the thread. It's as if the Sun rose in the East two days in a row. It's a total surprise! Maybe they too are recognizing the shamefulness of conservative leadership's assault on the fourteenth amendment.

Do you ever make a post that isn't full of hyperpartisan, mouthfoaming rant?
 
Wow! Yet another conservative offers another off topic contribution to the thread. It's as if the Sun rose in the East two days in a row. It's a total surprise! Maybe they too are recognizing the shamefulness of conservative leadership's assault on the fourteenth amendment.

In a thread discussing a proposal to end birthright citizenship (and Harry Reid's condemnation of it), Harry Reid's proposal to end birthright citizenship is off topic?

Keep fighting that war.
 
Last edited:
Do you ever make a post that isn't full of hyperpartisan, mouthfoaming rant?

And, jallman weighs in with another meaningless offering. Who'd of thunk it? This thread about conservatives tearing up the American legacy sure is attracting all kinds of distractions — there must be all kinds of angst that their leadership has gone too far this time. They'd be right.
 
I am going to put something out there that may or may not be popular, I could care less.

I don't think it is a smart strategy for Republicans to attack the 14th Amendment at all. They are alienating quite a large block of Americans with this rhetoric, that would never happen in the first place.

I think all they need to do is the KISS method, and not the band but the Keep it simple method. Stick to securing the border and visiting what to do with those already here after that is done.

j-mac
 
I am going to put something out there that may or may not be popular, I could care less.

I don't think it is a smart strategy for Republicans to attack the 14th Amendment at all. They are alienating quite a large block of Americans with this rhetoric, that would never happen in the first place.

I think all they need to do is the KISS method, and not the band but the Keep it simple method. Stick to securing the border and visiting what to do with those already here after that is done.

j-mac

I think they've realized that this is the best approach as well. A majority of Americans agree with the general concepts behind it, so there's no need to hammer this one into the ground.
 
In a thread discussing a proposal to end birthright citizenship (and Harry Reid's condemnation of it), Harry Reid's proposal l to end birthright citizenship is off topic?

Keep fighting that war.

Personal attacks are off-topic. Harry Reid's position on birthright citizenship then and now are certainly topical. He apologized for “the biggest mistake I ever made,” but where's Lindsey Graham's? Where's the conservative movement's apology? Altering the Constitution to stop birthright citizenship not only doesn't address the real immigration issues today but will prevent real resolutions for years to come.
 
And, jallman weighs in with another meaningless offering. Who'd of thunk it? This thread about conservatives tearing up the American legacy sure is attracting all kinds of distractions — there must be all kinds of angst that their leadership has gone too far this time. They'd be right.

So I'll just take that as a "no".
 
Personal attacks are off-topic. Harry Reid's position on birthright citizenship then and now are certainly topical. He apologized for “the biggest mistake I ever made,” but where's Lindsey Graham's? Where's the conservative movement's apology? Altering the Constitution to stop birthright citizenship not only doesn't address the real immigration issues today but will prevent real resolutions for years to come.

Because, Chappy, whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, Reid never apologized for wanting to end birthright citizenship.

And Reid actually introduced legislation to do it. Graham & Co merely proposed looking into the issue. Of course, for you, now it's a problem because OOOOH! REPUBLICANS!

And I'll say it straight out -- there's nothing inherently American or part and parcel of liberty about automatic birthright citizenship in every single case someone is born within the jurisdiction of the United States. Liberty and justice do just fine without it. You raise a hyperpartisan, rabidly emotional, historically daft strawman.

It may not be a good idea, it but sure as hell does not tear the fabric of what America means.
 
Last edited:

So you're saying that Lou Dobbs is an authoritative voice on what constitutes American liberty?
 

Do you buy these strawmen wholesale?

He's says he's against repealing the 14th Amenedment, which NO ONE has suggested.

And even so -- who the hell gives a crap what Lou Dobbs says? I certainly don't.
 
You're seeing strawmen in your sleep. Maybe you should wake up and address Lou Dobbs concerns that merely changing the fourteenth amendment is unacceptable. You know you must be way over the line when even Lou Dobbs doesn't agree with your radical ideas about illegal immigration.
 
You're seeing strawmen in your sleep. Maybe you should wake up and address Lou Dobbs concerns that merely changing the fourteenth amendment is unacceptable. You know you must be way over the line when even Lou Dobbs doesn't agree with your radical ideas about illegal immigration.

Why would I waste my time arguing about Lou Dobbs' thoughts on this issue? I don't give a **** about what Lou Dobbs thinks and neither do you - except for when he agrees with you.
 
You're seeing strawmen in your sleep. Maybe you should wake up and address Lou Dobbs concerns that merely changing the fourteenth amendment is unacceptable. You know you must be way over the line when even Lou Dobbs doesn't agree with your radical ideas about illegal immigration.

Who gives a flying **** about Lou Dobbs? And why are you lying about what he said, anyway? Or, for that matter, what I said?
 
You're both right, I don't care what Lou Dobbs says, beyond, of course, that he said something right in my opinion. This monument to over-the-top illegal immigration opposition vociferously opposes stripping birthright citizenship from the Constitution because it “is so important.” That kinda leaves the opponents of birthright citizenship even more over-the-top than Lou Dobbs. You gotta admit it, that's very far out there.

Those arguing against birthright citizenship haven't offered anything but something Harry Reid did in 1993 and regretted almost immediately afterward. Even his first generation immigrant wife told him what a fool he had been. “[T]hat is a low point of my legislative career, the low point of my governmental career.” Pretty thin endorsement there.

I've offered considered opinions as to the worthiness of this cause and you've offered bupkis. I'm with the Constitution and over a hundred of years of Supreme Court precedent and you're … where exactly?
 
You're both right, I don't care what Lou Dobbs says, beyond, of course, that he said something right in my opinion. This monument to over-the-top illegal immigration opposition vociferously opposes stripping birthright citizenship from the Constitution because it “is so important.” That kinda leaves the opponents of birthright citizenship even more over-the-top than Lou Dobbs. You gotta admit it, that's very far out there.

Your attempts to paint the people who disagree with you as fringe are laughable.

The percentage of people who believe that the children of illegal immigrants should not automatically become citizens is similar to the percentage of people who voted for Obama.

But yea, those people are all just "very far out there." It's not just another attempt to marginalize those that you disagree with by pretending that they're outside the mainstream.

Those arguing against birthright citizenship haven't offered anything but something Harry Reid did in 1993 and regretted almost immediately afterward. Even his first generation immigrant wife told him what a fool he had been. “[T]hat is a low point of my legislative career, the low point of my governmental career.” Pretty thin endorsement there.

How hard is this to understand: The fact that Harry Reid actually proposed this legislation (and now says he regrets it) is relevant in that it puts the lie to his (and your) faux outrage over the fact that some on the right dared to consider the idea.

I've offered considered opinions as to the worthiness of this cause and you've offered bupkis. I'm with the Constitution and over a hundred of years of Supreme Court precedent and you're … where exactly?

lol

Take a second and think about why the current text of the Constitution and SC precedent interpreting that text doesn't do much when the discussion is about changing the underlying text.
 
Your attempts to paint the people who disagree with you as fringe are laughable.

The percentage of people who believe that the children of illegal immigrants should not automatically become citizens is similar to the percentage of people who voted for Obama.

Actually, that's a straw man. I don't argue that people in favor of changing the fourteenth amendment aren't numerous; it's a popular idea promulgated by irresponsible political opportunists. I ask, is this how conservatives “conserve” American traditions and values? Or is this how conservatives betray them? I think the latter.

But yea, those people are all just "very far out there." It's not just another attempt to marginalize those that you disagree with by pretending that they're outside the mainstream.

I rather think conservatives marginalize their own damned selves when they pose as crusaders against “anchor babies.” Now there's an opponent that they know they should be able to handle!

How hard is this to understand: The fact that Harry Reid actually proposed this legislation (and now says he regrets it) is relevant in that it puts the lie to his (and your) faux outrage over the fact that some on the right dared to consider the idea.

Oh, it's all too easy to understand that raising Harry Reid's committee action more than a decade and a half ago gives cover to today's opponents to birthright citizenship. As Harry Reid related in 2006 on the Senate floor, he came to regret his proposed legislation almost immediately after its introduction. He described how his family and his friends all came down hard on him for his shortsightedness. He apologized.

While it is relevant to raise Reid's error as indicative that even good men have proposed similar ideas, it is also relevant that he was sorry for it in the most public forum imaginable and in the most comprehensible way imaginable.

You say Harry Reid's error all those years ago “puts the lie” to my outrage; I rather think what happened next bolsters it. Harry Reid was put straight all those years ago and so should the conservative leadership in this country today. What they are doing is wrong and hurtful to America.

Take a second and think about why the current text of the Constitution and SC precedent interpreting that text doesn't do much when the discussion is about changing the underlying text.

Taking those seconds to understand how the Constitution and Supreme Court's precedents regarding the fourteenth amendment specifically have played out through American history to the present day certainly do a great deal in a discussion about changing the underlying text and how even the suggestion is outrageous and irresponsible.

It comes down to this that some conservatives see a political opportunity and have seized it; it is a dagger pointed at the American ideal of the equality of man, but, no matter, it might garner them a few extra votes on the side, and, in politics that's what matters. Not the nation. Not its values. What matters to these conservatives is whether they hold the bloody gavel or not.
 
Tell me . . .

How does ending a policy of automatically granting citizenship to anyone who simply happens to be born within the jurisdiction of the United States drive a dagger through the American ideal of the equality of man?

Be specific. Don't cop out.
 
I am no constitutional lawyer but here's my best description.

Consider if there were people in our society who were born here, never lived anywhere else, knew no other country, but, they weren't citizens. These people would constitute an underclass in our society. And, what would become of their children? Presumably, two non citizens would give birth to more non citizens which would assure a perpetual underclass. Such was the legacy of the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision of 1857.

And, that's the America that the authors of the fourteenth amendment corrected. Not only did they provide for equal protection under the law but they took the question of citizenship out of politics entirely. Born here, you're a citizen! Simple.

All men are created equal. The promise of the Declaration of Independence was finally fulfilled in the fourteenth amendment and it is birthright citizenship which assures that no underclass grows up in America ever again.
 
A) They would be citizens of some country, so it's not like they'd be in limbo

B) If they're here, they'd still be entitled to equal protection of the law, just like any other non-citizen who lives here

and

C) No one contemplates that there would be no path to citizenship for such a person. The point is that it would not be automatic.
 
Back
Top Bottom