ianstone
08-09-2010, 04:25 PM
GOP in jeopardy on 14th Amendment
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/09/14th-amendment-illegal-immigrants-republicans#history-link-box)
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/8/9/1281368869597/Immigration-Law-Supporter-006.jpg Supporters of Arizona's immigration enforcement law SB 1070 and Tea Party supporters rally in Phoenix, July 2010. Photograph: John Moore/Getty The Republican party has taken its harsh immigration posturing to a surprising new level. The issue of birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution since 1868, is under attack from leading Republicans, who are calling for hearings to reconsider it while making overtures to the repeal crowd.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a key Republican on immigration reform, recently fired the opening salvo in an appearance on Fox News, explicitly pledging to push for partial repeal.
"Birthright citizenship, I think, is a mistake," Graham said (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/lindsey-graham-birthright-citizenship-is-a-mistake-video.php), "that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen."
Soon, the Senate's top two Republicans, Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl, endorsed the idea (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100803/ap_on_go_co/us_republicans_birthright_citizenship) of holding hearings to review the matter. A wink and a nod followed from GOP Senators John McCain and Jeff Sessions, and quickly the rest of the party fell in line.
What this reflects is the mainstreaming of a cause that has long been relegated to the fringes. It was, interestingly, the Republican party that led in ratifying the 14th Amendment in the aftermath of the civil war, largely to ban the practice of race-based citizenship and ensure equal rights for freed slaves.
Of course, Republicans won't succeed in altering the 14th Amendment now, and they know it. Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in Congress, which Republicans won't muster in their dream scenario this November.
Nor will this fix any of the real immigration problems facing America. It's simply a distraction from serious reform, which also serves as political fodder for the conservative base.
The facts belie the supposed concern, as there's no evidence that birth tourism is a pervasive phenomenon. Illegal immigration is down (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/09/AR2010020903702.html). The Senate just voted to ramp up border security (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpS6ZKo4wAryQNsBY9i7PxjF3F7g). Deportations have hit record levels (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html) under the Obama administration. Pregnant women are subject to denial of entry into the United States.
For the GOP, this is little more than a capitulation to the nativist anxieties of its Tea Party wing – which have been exacerbated by the economic pressures of the recession (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602665.html?hpid=opinionsbox1).
And that makes this even more ironic. The Tea Partiers, whose core philosophy stems from a distrust of government, are championing a big-government proposal (http://theusconstitution.org/blog.history/?p=1853) that would afford bureaucrats the power to decide who's a citizen and who's not. What's to stop unscrupulous politicians or their flacks from denying citizenship to some for personal or political reasons?
It would also seem quite impractical to require every newborn to produce documentation and clear it with a federal agency before attaining legal rights. How long will some have to wait? How much will such a programme cost to administer, and how much will it grow the size of government? And then what happened to limited government?
There isn't much of a strategic objective for Republicans here. This stance and their borders-only, anti-reform rhetoric may be music to the ears of Tea Partiers, but it's perceived as a slap in the face to Hispanics, America's fastest-growing demographic and a rising political force, who voted for Obama in a ratio of two to one and feel increasingly alienated from the GOP. Serious strategists posit that neither party has much of a future if it fails to court Latinos.
Thus some Republicans are hedging. "I'm not aware of anybody who's come out for altering the 14th Amendment," backtracked McConnell (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/05/gops-mcconnell-on-birthright-citizenship-no-one-wants-to-alter/) when pressed. But others can't help but cash in on the hysteria. "[C]ertain parts of our country, clearly – our schools, our hospitals – are being overrun by illegal immigrants," warned House GOP leader John Boehner (http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/09/4848785-boehner-anchor-babies-overrun-our-schools). "The only way" to address the matter of birthright citizenship, chimed 2012 presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-06/republican-pawlenty-says-congress-should-extend-fund-upper-income-tax-cut.html), "is to amend the Constitution."
In the short term, Republicans have successfully seized upon the fears of their base and driven the national immigration debate to the right, which should help them in the November elections. But in the long run, they are travelling down a treacherous road – one that might keep them out of the White House for a generation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-loewe/have-republicans-lost-the_b_667345.html) if they don't change direction.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world)
Republicans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/republicans) ·
US politics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-politics) ·
US immigration (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usimmigration) ·
United States (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa) ·
Tea Party movement (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/tea-party-movement) ·
US midterm elections 2010 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-midterm-elections-2010)
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/users/JedBartlett)JedBartlett (http://www.guardian.co.uk/users/JedBartlett)
9 Aug 2010, 7:10PM
'we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen'
I'm sorry Mr Kapur, but what exactly is it that is so offensive about this entirely reasonable position?
Insofar as I follow the article, you feel that there is no evidence that 'birth-tourism is a problem. That might be true, but is does not seem a very good argument against the proposition set out in the quote.
9 Aug 2010, 7:12PM
So your argument is the Latino community votes for political candidates based on the racial ties to illegal immigrants, and that they already hold the balance of power in that entire democracy. And that's before giving million of illegal immigrants full citizenship?
The argument has changed over the last few years, from the irrational fear of cultural submersion, to - for want of a better phrase - swamp
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/09/14th-amendment-illegal-immigrants-republicans#history-link-box)
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/8/9/1281368869597/Immigration-Law-Supporter-006.jpg Supporters of Arizona's immigration enforcement law SB 1070 and Tea Party supporters rally in Phoenix, July 2010. Photograph: John Moore/Getty The Republican party has taken its harsh immigration posturing to a surprising new level. The issue of birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution since 1868, is under attack from leading Republicans, who are calling for hearings to reconsider it while making overtures to the repeal crowd.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a key Republican on immigration reform, recently fired the opening salvo in an appearance on Fox News, explicitly pledging to push for partial repeal.
"Birthright citizenship, I think, is a mistake," Graham said (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/lindsey-graham-birthright-citizenship-is-a-mistake-video.php), "that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen."
Soon, the Senate's top two Republicans, Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl, endorsed the idea (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100803/ap_on_go_co/us_republicans_birthright_citizenship) of holding hearings to review the matter. A wink and a nod followed from GOP Senators John McCain and Jeff Sessions, and quickly the rest of the party fell in line.
What this reflects is the mainstreaming of a cause that has long been relegated to the fringes. It was, interestingly, the Republican party that led in ratifying the 14th Amendment in the aftermath of the civil war, largely to ban the practice of race-based citizenship and ensure equal rights for freed slaves.
Of course, Republicans won't succeed in altering the 14th Amendment now, and they know it. Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in Congress, which Republicans won't muster in their dream scenario this November.
Nor will this fix any of the real immigration problems facing America. It's simply a distraction from serious reform, which also serves as political fodder for the conservative base.
The facts belie the supposed concern, as there's no evidence that birth tourism is a pervasive phenomenon. Illegal immigration is down (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/09/AR2010020903702.html). The Senate just voted to ramp up border security (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpS6ZKo4wAryQNsBY9i7PxjF3F7g). Deportations have hit record levels (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html) under the Obama administration. Pregnant women are subject to denial of entry into the United States.
For the GOP, this is little more than a capitulation to the nativist anxieties of its Tea Party wing – which have been exacerbated by the economic pressures of the recession (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602665.html?hpid=opinionsbox1).
And that makes this even more ironic. The Tea Partiers, whose core philosophy stems from a distrust of government, are championing a big-government proposal (http://theusconstitution.org/blog.history/?p=1853) that would afford bureaucrats the power to decide who's a citizen and who's not. What's to stop unscrupulous politicians or their flacks from denying citizenship to some for personal or political reasons?
It would also seem quite impractical to require every newborn to produce documentation and clear it with a federal agency before attaining legal rights. How long will some have to wait? How much will such a programme cost to administer, and how much will it grow the size of government? And then what happened to limited government?
There isn't much of a strategic objective for Republicans here. This stance and their borders-only, anti-reform rhetoric may be music to the ears of Tea Partiers, but it's perceived as a slap in the face to Hispanics, America's fastest-growing demographic and a rising political force, who voted for Obama in a ratio of two to one and feel increasingly alienated from the GOP. Serious strategists posit that neither party has much of a future if it fails to court Latinos.
Thus some Republicans are hedging. "I'm not aware of anybody who's come out for altering the 14th Amendment," backtracked McConnell (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/05/gops-mcconnell-on-birthright-citizenship-no-one-wants-to-alter/) when pressed. But others can't help but cash in on the hysteria. "[C]ertain parts of our country, clearly – our schools, our hospitals – are being overrun by illegal immigrants," warned House GOP leader John Boehner (http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/09/4848785-boehner-anchor-babies-overrun-our-schools). "The only way" to address the matter of birthright citizenship, chimed 2012 presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-06/republican-pawlenty-says-congress-should-extend-fund-upper-income-tax-cut.html), "is to amend the Constitution."
In the short term, Republicans have successfully seized upon the fears of their base and driven the national immigration debate to the right, which should help them in the November elections. But in the long run, they are travelling down a treacherous road – one that might keep them out of the White House for a generation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-loewe/have-republicans-lost-the_b_667345.html) if they don't change direction.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world)
Republicans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/republicans) ·
US politics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-politics) ·
US immigration (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usimmigration) ·
United States (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa) ·
Tea Party movement (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/tea-party-movement) ·
US midterm elections 2010 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-midterm-elections-2010)
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/users/JedBartlett)JedBartlett (http://www.guardian.co.uk/users/JedBartlett)
9 Aug 2010, 7:10PM
'we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen'
I'm sorry Mr Kapur, but what exactly is it that is so offensive about this entirely reasonable position?
Insofar as I follow the article, you feel that there is no evidence that 'birth-tourism is a problem. That might be true, but is does not seem a very good argument against the proposition set out in the quote.
9 Aug 2010, 7:12PM
So your argument is the Latino community votes for political candidates based on the racial ties to illegal immigrants, and that they already hold the balance of power in that entire democracy. And that's before giving million of illegal immigrants full citizenship?
The argument has changed over the last few years, from the irrational fear of cultural submersion, to - for want of a better phrase - swamp