Video: Lindsey Graham — yes, really — wants to end birthright citizenship for children of illegals

posted at 4:57 pm on July 29, 2010 by Allahpundit

I had the strangest dream last night. I dreamed that a guy known nationally for being the second-most dedicated amnesty shill in the Republican Party, who once stood up before the National Council of La Raza to pander about “bigots,” had now actually embraced an enforcement provision so controversial that it qualified as news when Rand Paul dared to mention it a few months ago. And in my dream, not only did this guy turn up on Fox News to push the idea, he actually clipped the segment and posted it to his own YouTube account to make sure that it would spread far and wide. Ever have a dream like that, that’s so crazy you wake up wondering what you possibly could have experienced during the day to generate something so preposterous? I’ve had a lot of them lately.

Seriously, I’m not sure how to read this. Either he’s now so terrified of a serious primary challenge — and rightly so — that he’s going to push mighty uncharacteristic base-pleasing policies over the next few years or, more intriguingly, he thinks that the country has shifted far enough to the right on immigration that something like this will now have to be included for any comprehensive bill to pass. In other words, The Great Compromiser may have surmised that any compromise now requires enforcement measures above and beyond merely sealing the border or building the hugely popular fence. That’s an amazing turn of events if so, and likely to be influential among Republicans in the next congressional term given Graham’s status as a benchmark of how far towards the center a GOPer can reasonably be. No one but no one wants to hear it said of him/her by grassroots conservatives, “They’re worse than Graham is!” Susan Collins and Scott Brown, take note.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The 14th Amendment uses under the jurisdiction of the US in relation to citizenship. The definition of jurisdiction for the purposes of this amendment was that you had sworn loyalty to the US. Even American Indians were not considered citizens because of their loyalty to the tribe which later the SCOTUS overruled.

The SCOTUS has never directly dealt with the anchor baby question, but if the 14th amendment is taken as it was intended, illegal’s children born in the US are not citizens.

amr on July 29, 2010 at 9:11 PM

Lindsey Graham — yes, really — wants to end birthright citizenship for children of illegals

Graham would be our trashing our long established standard of jus soli citizenship. This citizenship standard is found in our court cases and can be traced all the way back to English common law and Calvin’s Case of 1608.

rukiddingme on July 29, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Barnestormer on July 29, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Having read this some time ago, this is the thrust of Will’s argument:

The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.

If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration — and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration — is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.

He implies that because there was no law restricting immigration, the writers of the 14th Amendment could not have forseen such a law being written.

He conveniently ignores two historical facts when making this argument:

1) The Know Nothing party was around as early as 1840. The anti-immigration segment of the population had established itself before the 14th Amendment was written. It seems the writers of the 14th Amendment would have had this knowledge
at their disposal.

2) The first attempt to restrict immigration of certain individuals,the Chinese Exclusion Acts were written in 1882, a mere 14 short years after the 14th Amendment.

rukiddingme on July 29, 2010 at 9:33 PM

I am going to take a position on this:

Anchor babies should no longer be automatic citizens.

A process should be developed whereinasmuch should a child born to illegal parents maintain a clean record until age 18, said child moves up a step to provisional status.

If said child should maintain a clean record until age 25, he/she should be offered naturalized citizenship.

If child fails either of these two tests, send him/her by air-drop straight to Mexico City (or capital city of illegal patrents’ origin) and let them sort it out. But no reentry.

The reason I would take a strict stance such as this comes down to the basic maxim that “the good must suffer for the bad.”

In the past, when we did not have a “broken-dam” situation, a child might be born of various happenstances in the United States. Citizenship was granted as sort of a bonus lottery ticket. But that was before the whole thing became inverted – before “anchor babies” became an actual magnet to subvert the law and to invade America.

We are under foreign invasion from a country to our south, called Mexico. We are being taken with very few shots fired so far.

I believe that President Obama’s suit against Arizona is unarguably an impeachable offense against the Union, and that Congress should immediately begin proceedings to impeach him and remove him from office.

For the foreseeable future, given the demonstrable lack of assimilation by illegal aliens of the last 15 or so years, failure to rescind “anchor baby” status is an act of national suicide.

cane_loader on July 29, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Lindsey Graham — yes, really — wants to end birthright citizenship for children of illegals

Yes, really, it’s a good idea. It originated as protection for the children of newly freed slaves in 1868, as part of the 14th Amendment.

No longer necessary, so let’s get rid of the anchor baby rule. Foreign citizens should not be allowed to use this to establish a foothold in this country.

disa on July 29, 2010 at 10:17 PM

We don’t see Graham on camera very often or hear him speak, and when we do I am reminded that he is a small, lisping, whiny pansy. I’ll bet he got the spit kicked out of him every day when he was in school.

Jaibones on July 29, 2010 at 11:35 PM

It will probably take an Amendment to clear this up, but a reasonable rule would be that jus soli only applies to children whose parents (or at least mother) were lawfully resident in the US at the time of their birth.

I don’t expect the “pro” immigration crowd to be reasonable.

Momentum for such an Amendment might convince the open boarders crowd to concede that a statuary qualification (there being no such thing a an alien unlawfully residing in the US at the time of the 14th Amendment) is constitutional.

LarryD on July 30, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Constitutionally, a child born in this country whose parents are both illegal (not citizens or a resident aliens with the intent of attaining citizenship) are still regarded as being citizens of their parents legal country.

If the illegal parents want to make the the child a legal U.S. citizen there is a process to go through, but their parent(s) are sent home if caught. If granted citizenship the child can petition for their parents to be granted resident alien status when they are of legal age.

MSGTAS on July 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2