Ed Rendell: What’s with these conservative wackos and birthright citizenship?

posted at 7:41 pm on August 9, 2010 by Allahpundit

Oh Ed. Sweet, innocent Ed. Don’t you know that the birthright citizenship amendment is nonsense being fed to the base by amnesty-minded Beltway Republicans to convince us of their immigration bona fides? Selling out to the left on a path to citizenship is way too electorally dangerous for them right now. But after a few months, or even years, of table-pounding about an amendment that’s going nowhere? They’re golden.

I’m really surprised that a Dem as savvy as Rendell doesn’t realize how much contempt the GOP leadership has for the intelligence of its own supporters.

The sudden support cheered anti-immigration hard-liners who have been pushing to do away with birthright citizenship for years, but the senators face a problem: Few others want to take up the issue, and it is almost assuredly going nowhere

“We don’t think that it is worth the political capital to initiate a debate on this issue,” said Jon Feere, legal policy analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that backs stricter immigration policies. “The energy spent on ending birthright citizenship might be better spent reducing illegal immigration through a commitment to immigration law enforcement generally. If illegal immigration is ended, the problem of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens disappears.”…

“My organization would say there should be a change on the horizon, but not in the way Lindsey Graham is talking about it,” said Rosemary Jenks, director of governmental relations for the nonprofit NumbersUSA, the leading group opposed to birthright citizenship. “I do think it is political. . . . What we need is a serious discussion of the actual issues, not a lot of political ploys. “

They have a track record of this, you know. James Antle:

The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait recently snickered at the number of conservative constitutional amendments floating around that have been endorsed by “mainstream Republicans,” but the joke is really on conservatives: a no-hope constitutional amendment is the usual way a GOP politician pays lip service to some conservative concern he plans to do nothing about.

A classic example is the antiabortion human life amendment. At its peak in 1984, it got 49 votes in a Republican-controlled Senate with a sympathetic, articulate pro-lifer in the White House — 18 votes short of passage, two shy of a simple majority. Fast forward more than twenty years to the federal marriage amendment. With a 10-seat Republican majority in the Senate and a sympathetic if inarticulate president, the gay marriage amendment failed 49 to 48.

What do conservatives have to show for the Republicans’ election-year promises to support the human life amendment and the federal marriage amendment? Absolutely nothing, unless you count 37 years of Roe v. Wade and a Supreme Court that is within Anthony Kennedy’s vote of issuing a similarly sweeping decision redefining marriage.

The fact that it’s Graham, a guy who’s never felt obliged to pander to the righty base, that’s out in front on this issue should tell you everything you need to know about how serious Republicans senators are about it. If this were a simple matter of playing to the grassroots, he’d have left it to DeMint and company; the fact that he’s involved means he sees some sort of legislative advantage to being involved, which almost certainly means he’s trying to stockpile conservative cred with an eye to making an eventual immigration “compromise” more politically palatable. Nothing nuts or wacko about it. On the contrary, it’s a shrewd if cynical move to create political space for a more “moderate” solution. Conservative media will call him on it every step of the way, but that’s never stopped Graham before. Why would it now?


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

Hey fellas let us PLEASE seal the damn border and then we can talk about what to do. One issue at a time Dummies!

Herb on August 9, 2010 at 7:46 PM

yeah, cuckoo. The economy’s in a ditch and toonces is at the wheel. Jobs are nada and we’re the ones that are cuckoo? project much?

ted c on August 9, 2010 at 7:46 PM

I’m really surprised that a Dem as savvy as Rendell doesn’t realize how much contempt the GOP leadership has for the intelligence of its own supporters.

Soooo soooooo true.

Weight of Glory on August 9, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Ed, just go away. You are probably the worst governor we have ever had here in PA. People just don’t get it when I tell them yes, his nickname really is ‘Fast Eddie’.

reddevil on August 9, 2010 at 7:49 PM

“I’m beginning to worry that these guys are cuckoo.”

Ask not, Ed Randell, for whom the bell tolls as it tolls for thee.

Oh, and by the way, Ed, you should get ahead of the rest of your crowd by learning the word for the day for this coming November 2. That word is Oblivion! There will also be a phase that may gain some popularity. That phrase is Dien Bien Phu.

Tav on August 9, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Anyone else remember a story a couple of years back about the 50 or so Saudi women that got busted in Michigan for being flown in for the specific purpose of giving birth in America??

When I say ‘busted’…I mean some one called attention to it..don’t remember if anything happened to them or not.

BigWyo on August 9, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Yes, of course it’s a cynical ploy from career politicians without a whisper of conviction. But they may burn their fingers playing with fire this time. The electorate — especially the righty electorate — is in an appalling mood.

Now is not the time to poke angry dog with short stick.

S. Weasel on August 9, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Now is not the time to poke angry dog with short stick.

S. Weasel on August 9, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Don’t think they can help themselves.

sharrukin on August 9, 2010 at 7:55 PM

I certainly hope the voters of SC will stop him his next election cycle. Grahamnesty would never push for this unless he has already planned it out with someone on the Dem side already knowing what he will get when he drops it. I don`t think his ploy will work with the electorate and it certainly won`t work with the conservative base.

bluemarlin on August 9, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Oh, and by the way, Ed, you should get ahead of the rest of your crowd by learning the word for the day for this coming November 2. That word is Oblivion! There will also be a phase that may gain some popularity. That phrase is Dien Bien Phu.

Tav on August 9, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Other words from the old days, Tar, Feathers, and a Pole right before they are run out of town.

bluemarlin on August 9, 2010 at 7:58 PM

A dirty old man passing out free candy is more to be trusted than Lindsey Grahamcrackers and Juan McJeckleandHyde.

Tav on August 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM

It does have a romantic frisson – that being born in America makes you an American.

Had we enforced the border properly for the last 30 years, we could have continued to make it a rare indulgence for those fortuitous enough to have been born here by accident.

But the act of coming here intentionally to give birth, while breaking the border-crossing law, is an out-and-out crime. It’s also an egregious and coercive abuse of the good will of a warm-hearted people who really can’t afford to sponsor 6.5 billion randomly-skilled humans in their country.

It is a criminal act and, as such, those responsible should be deported ASAP with a no-return-or-prison clause, and the baby sent with them, so that the baby can be raised in its home country.

As well, a specific law must be passed to make it a felony to illegally come to America with the goal of giving birth.

Push has come to shove – and I think I speak for a majority of Americans when I say it’s time for us to shove back, with no more talk-talk.

cane_loader on August 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM

I don`t think his ploy will work with the electorate and it certainly won`t work with the conservative base.

bluemarlin on August 9, 2010 at 7:56 PM

But will it work after 2010 and they don’t need to worry about re-election?

Short sighted and stupid? Sure, but when have they been any other way?

sharrukin on August 9, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Operation 14TH Amendent Distraction is
operational!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stupid LibTards!!!!!!!!!!!

Suckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on August 9, 2010 at 8:02 PM

A little light-bulb just went on for me:

Now I know what the Founders were talking about when they refer to “Natural-Born.”

cane_loader on August 9, 2010 at 8:02 PM

Fast Eddie Rendell has had a history of failing to deliver a budget by due date, and he mocks other politicos?

Check this out:

This is how unserious the federal government is in curbing foolish spending. Federal legislators have earmarked funding for the John Murtha Center to be matched by funding by the equally profligate PA Governor Rendell, who plans to match the moneys.
http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x2064743419/Feds-eye-10M-for-Murtha-Center

Pork in Congress and pork in PA: Fast Eddie will find a way to waste taxpayers’ money.

onlineanalyst on August 9, 2010 at 8:05 PM

This is the ongoing problem with Sen. Graham. He thinks we are stupid and he’s not afraid to show it. We know what pandering means.

Cindy Munford on August 9, 2010 at 8:08 PM

It is almost like this clown is unaware that the enumeration of illegal aliens in this country costs PA a representative in the House.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters5cbd

OBQuiet on August 9, 2010 at 8:09 PM

But will it work after 2010 and they don’t need to worry about re-election?

Short sighted and stupid? Sure, but when have they been any other way?

sharrukin on August 9, 2010 at 8:01 PM

All the more reason to not lose focus and turn our backs on these career elitist politicians. We have to stay after them probably more if they are the majority than ever.

bluemarlin on August 9, 2010 at 8:10 PM

BigWyo on August 9, 2010 at 7:53 PM

There was a link at “The Corner” not too long ago about how widespread the business of transporting pregnant women from other countries to the US in order to secure American citizenship. This is not just a problem of the southwest border. The writer said that Europe is riddled with many young people of Middle East origins carrying US passports.

onlineanalyst on August 9, 2010 at 8:12 PM

If Rendell is worried that Lindsey Graham is going to fire up the conservative base, I think he can rest easy.

RBMN on August 9, 2010 at 8:16 PM

It may be hogwash now, but what’s important to pay attention to is public mood. If, in the near future, there is an economic crash, and illegal aliens are thought to be part of the problem, the country will see a very large visceral reaction to illegal immigration. There may be so much visceral reaction the country *demands* massive deportations, and other “extreme” measures. I say extreme in quotations because if that is the what the majority of the public wants in such a hypothetical situation, the solution will be far from viewed as extreme.

If such a large, emotionally charged reaction occurs, all bets are off. So watch the public’s mood on these sorts of political things. Given the right conditions, very extreme measures will be demanded by the public, for better or for worse.

Weebork on August 9, 2010 at 8:17 PM

I’m really surprised that a Dem as savvy as Rendell doesn’t realize how much contempt the GOP leadership has for the intelligence of its own supporters.

If we know…he knows.

repvoter on August 9, 2010 at 8:18 PM

NO ONE here in Central PA like Spendell.

DethMetalCookieMonst on August 9, 2010 at 8:22 PM

There was a link at “The Corner” not too long ago about how widespread the business of transporting pregnant women from other countries to the US in order to secure American citizenship. This is not just a problem of the southwest border. The writer said that Europe is riddled with many young people of Middle East origins carrying US passports.

onlineanalyst on August 9, 2010 at 8:12 PM

It’ll be great when many of these middle eastern U.S. citizens, hiding in plain sight around the country, coming out of hiding and take us down.

Political class = ostriches with heads in sand.

BuckeyeSam on August 9, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Ed is the Joe Biden of Governors. Dumb as an ox.

jdflorida on August 9, 2010 at 8:27 PM

allahpundit, i think u r wrong: this isn’t a mere ploy.

i say that because updating the 14th A would be hugely popular (like by 70% of the USA: everyone but the knee-jerk/partisan left — JUST LIKE THE MISSOURI OBAMACARE VITE!) – just like a wall on our border with Mexico.

i asked a hardcore leftist buddy of mine (who is non-partisan) if he thought pregnant tourists or illegal aliens should be allowed to have their kids become USA citizens automatically just because they popped out here and he said Unequivocally: “no.”

only the babies legal residents should become USA citizens when born here: that means folks with green cards.

there were no green cards in 1868 when the amendment was written.

it’s time to update it.

reliapundit on August 9, 2010 at 8:32 PM

I’m really surprised that a Dem as savvy as Rendell doesn’t realize how much contempt the GOP leadership has for the intelligence of its own supporters.

WTF? Rendell isn’t running for anything in the near future; he’s term-limited. I’ll bet this was by Dem design. He and Dems know darned well what a manipulative POS Graham is, so they’re assured that Graham will turn the table on conservatives somewhere down the road. In the meantime, Rendell gets a head start painting conservatives and–especially–any independents who might find this idea appealing as nativists and racists of the worst kind.

In fact, I seriously doubt most Americans are aware of birthright citizenship. And I’ll bet that when presented with accurate facts about its abuses and lack of sensible underlying policy, independents will agree that it makes no sense to slit our wrists and cut our throats.

In the end, Ed is merely getting the drum beating that this a fringe idea.

BuckeyeSam on August 9, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Hey guys

I just had an idea
how about we don’t extend citizenship to the Children of Illegal Aliens…
It doesn’t seem wacko to me
nor does taxing mexico for feeding their poor

Observation on August 9, 2010 at 8:39 PM

There was a link at “The Corner” not too long ago about how widespread the business of transporting pregnant women from other countries to the US in order to secure American citizenship. This is not just a problem of the southwest border. The writer said that Europe is riddled with many young people of Middle East origins carrying US passports.

onlineanalyst on August 9, 2010 at 8:12 PM

It’s understandable. These people live in unstable countries. If you’re in the same situation and you have the means, you would buy your children such an insurance too. I don’t see it as a that big of a deal, certainly not big enough to justify a change in the constitution. People who can get into the country legally have to be relatively well-off. If they undertake such a venture for their children’s future, well, they’re already better than many native Americans.

year_of_the_dingo on August 9, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Here is the link re “birth tourism” with an email from a person who has credibility that demonstrates the extensiveness of the abuse of US citizenship via birth in the US:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/242177/birthright-citizenship-mark-krikorian

This is an eye-opener that indicates how widespread worldwide our problems with border security really are.

onlineanalyst on August 9, 2010 at 8:40 PM

If illegal immigration is ended, the problem of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens disappears.”…

One wont end without fixing the other.

rickyricardo on August 9, 2010 at 9:00 PM

I don’t care what Graham’s numbers are today…he’s not on the ballot until 2013. Once SC voters get to see his ‘Obama’ like character, he’s gone. And he can’t run away, either.

AUINSC on August 9, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Rasmussen has the issue at 58% for and 33% against. I suspect that more a measure of people’s frustration at the lack of immigration enforcement. Once people start seriously thinking about the issue though, support will probably collapse. First of all, I don’t think all people know that an end to birthright citizenship require a constitutional amendment. A change to a law that ended slavery should make most Republicans pause–we enacted it after all. Second, few Americans believe that children should bear the sin of their parents. An end to birth-right citizenship means babies will come into the world as illegals. That goes completely against the notion that “all men are created equal.” Third, as someone noted at NRO, an end to birthright citizenship will mean more abortions. Many social conservatives will peel off. Already, some Christian groups are objecting to deportation of illegal immigrants. Imagine how they–or typical Americans for that matter–will react when you start arguing for deportation of infants.

year_of_the_dingo on August 9, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Ed is a political hack who has put Pa in greater debt than ever with taxes. He has a loser in Pittsburgh gambling, wants to tax any interstate people use and we can’t wait until”Cuckoo Ed” is GONE!!!!!

congma on August 9, 2010 at 9:51 PM

There is no need to alter the constitution. Intent of Section One of the 14th proves that anchor babies are not law.
The Ruling Class collapse will take some bloggers with them…

mjbrooks3 on August 9, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Gramnesty is a traitor….he has not upheld his oath of office to defend against all enemies…
If the 17th amendment was not enacted, he could easily be recalled…

jerrytbg on August 9, 2010 at 10:03 PM

The only cuckoo afflicted being in this country are the ones that cannot grasp the implications and predictable calamities involved with this amendment which is being bastardized by these vermin from the south. It should be obvious that “anchor babies” were not part of the original intent.

LarryG on August 9, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Maybe a narrowing of the 14th Amendment’s application to newly-freed slaves at the end of the American Civil War. Doesn’t jeopardize the citizenship of the descendants of those freed slaves, while denying citizenship to anchor babies.

No point in crossing the border while prego if it won’t make the kid a US citizen…

Sekhmet on August 9, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Okay, what was the moderated word this time?

Sekhmet on August 9, 2010 at 11:03 PM

There are tour companies that sell immigration/birth services to expectant women. With enough money, a person can get to the US from nearly anywhere in the world in a day or less. Isn’t it time our laws kept up the technology AND the threat levels.

I know plenty of libs who want sealed borders and stronger immigration policy. Yep, we’re nuts.

Laura in Maryland on August 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM

On behalf of my fellow conservative PA citizens, having already apologized to everyone here for Benedick (sic) Specter, I’d also like to sincerely apologize for our reckless libtard Governor, Fast Eddie Rendell. We’re sorry. Please do not hold this against us.

NumberTwo on August 9, 2010 at 11:51 PM

erTwo on August 9, 2010 at 11:51 PM

Yep, don’t blame me either. I voted for Lynn Swann.

hawkdriver on August 10, 2010 at 6:06 AM

I have said this since Grahamnesty even proposed it was grandstanding. We do NOT have to change anything we need to ENFORCE “Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof” It seems everybody avoids this phrase afte it says everyone is a US citizen.
During the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was NOT a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion. The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Therefor, if your parents are ILLEGAL you’re ILLEGAL TOO!

xler8bmw on August 10, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Nice try Ed. Never before have we had such abuse if the 14th ammendment. Because the feds insist on keeping the border open, anchor babies are a huge pull for illegals.

I don’t think a massive shift in US demographics to ignorant peasants is a good thing for America. The democrats simply want to flood the US voting pool with ignorant sheep that can be hearded like lemings.

saiga on August 10, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Here’s an interesting hypothetical – and yes it is an unlikely one – but I think it illustrates the absurdity of “birthright citizenship” for those here illegally.

Suppose America were invaded and at war on its own soil. Suppose that the invading army had women soldiers as well as men. Suppose that some of those women gave birth here and that the fathers were also soldiers in the invading army. Would that child be a citizen? Under current interpretation of the constitution, that child would be a full U.S. Citizen by virtue of the geography of its birth.

Indeed, a far-thinking jihadi could come to america with a muslim woman, birth a child, get it full u.s. citizenship, go back to Afghanistan or Iran, raise the child to be a suicide bomber and that child would have a U.S. Passport, etc.

It would be like me being able to vote in another state’s election b/c I was driving through that state on election day. It is absurd.

Does any other country have such citizenship laws? I don’t believe so. There is a reason for that.

Monkeytoe on August 10, 2010 at 11:52 AM

RINOcandyassmoderate: What part of “American” don’t you understand?

bigotedbirtherteapartierextremist: The brown part.
***

Monkeytoe on August 10, 2010 at 11:52 AM

You can’t demonize someone’s citizenship away. No matter what scenario you use to tighten the bolts on your neck you will not be allowed to take away another American’s citizenship because you don’t like the way their parents look, speak or pray.

***

The Race Card on August 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM