"Anchor Babies" and the 14th Amendment

[finnbow]

The issue of "anchor babies" and the citizenship conferred upon them by virtue of birth within the USA is getting a lot of exposure lately. I'm of mixed mind on this one. Most nations do not confer citizenship on the basis of birth location (jus soli), but upon the nationality/citizenship of the parent (jus sanguinis).

Our "jus soli" system, embodied within the 14th amendment, became law in 1868 during reconstruction and was largely a reaction to the Dred Scott decision (1857) in which the Supreme Court ruled that descendants of African slaves could never become citizens.

I understand the modern-day concerns about "anchor babies," but at the same time I have concerns about right-wing politicians stroking our darker xenophobic tendencies. Furthermore, revocation of the 14th Amendment might set a precedent for future revocation of citizenship based upon some sort of loyalty or patriotism test. As it is now, if you're born in the US, you are a American citizen and this cannot be revoked (unless you yourself choose to renounce it). In contrast, naturalization can be revoked if attained through fraud.

In that this would require a constitutional amendment (an arduous process indeed), I fear that the current GOP position on this issue is simply yet another cynical attempt to creat a wedge issue. What say you?

[merrylander]

Rather surprised that it is Lindsay Graham pushing it, I would expect it from Jug Ears.

[noonereal]

excellet post, it's ashame no politician arrives at their opinion in such a measured and considered manner

IMO the only reason we are even talking about this is for political reasons not because this is or has ever been a problem that needed addressing

as such I think discussion of repealing an amendment to the constitution for strictly political gain is not only ill advised but also unethical

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by noonereal

excellet post, it's ashame no politician arrives at their opinion in such a measured and considered manner

Thanks, noon. Nuanced thinking is so out of vogue, you see. Maybe because it confuses those looking for simple, red meat answers.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Thanks, noon. Nuanced thinking is so out of vogue, you see. Maybe because it confuses those looking for simple, red meat answers.

I often think of it like this, all politicians work in a micro world and never consider the macro as it is to hard to translate to a constituency consisting of one issue voters.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The issue of "anchor babies" and the citizenship conferred upon them by virtue of birth within the USA is getting a lot of exposure lately. I'm of mixed mind on this one. Most nations do not confer citizenship on the basis of birth location (jus soli), but upon the nationality/citizenship of the parent (jus sanguinis).

Our "jus soli" system, embodied within the 14th amendment, became law in 1868 during reconstruction and was largely a reaction to the Dred Scott decision (1857) in which the Supreme Court ruled that descendants of African slaves could never become citizens.

I understand the modern-day concerns about "anchor babies," but at the same time I have concerns about right-wing politicians stroking our darker xenophobic tendencies. Furthermore, revocation of the 14th Amendment might set a precedent for future revocation of citizenship based upon some sort of loyalty or patriotism test. As it is now, if you're born in the US, you are a American citizen and this cannot be revoked (unless you yourself choose to renounce it). In contrast, naturalization can be revoked if attained through fraud.

In that this would require a constitutional amendment (an arduous process indeed), I fear that the current GOP position on this issue is simply yet another cynical attempt to creat a wedge issue to solidify/energize its base. What say you?

Well written.

And I would agree that this issue has been brought forth, at this time, to serve as a wedge issue. But it is an issue which needs to be addressed, IMHO.

Which means, it will be totally ignored as soon as the election is over.

Elections aren't about us, they're about them.

Chas

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I often think of it like this, all politicians work in a micro world and never consider the macro as it is to hard to translate to a constituency consisting of one issue voters.

Their (politicians) idea of a macro world is not only getting elected, staying that way, but feathering their nests as well.

The micro world the voters see consists of a difference between the parties.

Chas

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

Well written.

And I would agree that this issue has been brought forth, at this time, to serve as a wedge issue. But it is an issue which needs to be addressed, IMHO.

Which means, it will be totally ignored as soon as the election is over.

Elections aren't about us, they're about them.

Chas

You and some of your reasonable responses look like you're trying to make those of us who are more comfortable with party lines (OK, partisan) look bad. However, I haven't really seen the Democrats using any particular wedge issue (except perhaps wealth). Are there any that you would identify?

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

Their (politicians) idea of a macro world is not only getting elected, staying that way, but feathering their nests as well.

The micro world the voters see consists of a difference between the parties.

Chas

you are God damed right

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

You and some of your reasonable responses look like you're trying to make those of us who are more comfortable with party lines (OK, partisan) look bad. However, I haven't really seen the Democrats using any particular wedge issue (except perhaps wealth). Are there any that you would identify?

Regards,

D-Ray

Nothing new.

Race is going to be the hot ticket item this cycle. Remember Willie Horton? The Republicans were trying to show that Dukakis was soft on crime, and the Democrats turned it around and claimed that the Pubbies were trying to scare the white folks with a black man.

Now I realize that we view the world through a different prism, but the Democrats playing the race card is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder how anyone else could not notice it. Just being honest here.

Actually, it's kind of like me going mushroom hunting. I can't find one to save my soul because I'm looking for the wrong thing. The picture in my mind is incorrect. I know what a mushroom looks like, but I don't know what one looks like in it's natural surroundings.

Then we have the old class warfare ploy. Somehow, the likes of a John Skerry on the bow of his yacht pointing out how the rich Republicans will screw me is a tough sell.

Not that the Pubbies are any better. They just tell me more lies I want to hear than the Donks do. And I only agree with them maybe 60% of the time.

Chas