Harry Reid tried to end birthright citizenship for illegals in 1993

posted at 12:15 pm on August 13, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

According to Harry Reid’s own standards, he should lose his entire Hispanic vote over this, right?  While Democrats paint Republicans who challenge birthright citizenship as extremists, it turns out that Reid was seventeen years ahead of the curve.  In 1993, just after Democrats won the White House, Reid filed a bill that would have done exactly what some Republicans now demand — end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.  Kerry Picket digs up the record for the Washington Times:

Title X of the Reid introduced bill shows the Nevada Democrat took Senator Lindsey Graham’s, South Carolina Republican, idea on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and documented it into legislation:

“TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.  In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

Even the summary of the bill contains language that would offend many of Mr. Reid’s supporters who are pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants in the United States:

“A bill to curb criminal activity by aliens, to defend against acts of international terrorism, to protect American workers from unfair labor competition, and to relieve pressure on public services by strengthening border security and stabilizing immigration into the United States.”

The bill appears to have gone nowhere, and it’s not clear whether it would have been effective or not.  If the 14th Amendment grants birthright citizenship no matter whether the parents are in the US legally, legislation won’t undo that.  It would take a constitutional amendment — which may be why S1351 never went anywhere in 1993 or 1994 in the 103rd Session of Congress.

On the other hand, the proviso of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the language of the 14th Amendment leaves a good basis for courts to determine a meaning that requires one parent to either be a citizen or to have entered the country legally.  As far as I’ve seen, that argument hasn’t been tested in court to see whether a constitutional amendment is even required.  In that case, a bill passed by Congress like S1351 would at least give the courts a sense of Congress on the meaning of the 14th amendment, although a court wouldn’t be required to make that an overriding consideration.

In any case, this shows the utter hypocrisy of Harry Reid and Democrats in general in their effort to paint questions over birthright citizenship as somehow extreme.  Reid himself thought it important enough to draft and submit legislation to limit it to its common-sense application to those legally in the US.

Weasel Zippers, Red Dog Report, and Moe Lane have more thoughts on this.

Update: Greg Sargent acknowledges that Reid did try to get this passed, but says there is more to the story:

Conservatives are pointing to this as proof of Reid’s hypocrisy in the wake of his claim the other day that he doesn’t understand how any Latinos could ever vote Republican. Ed Morrissey argued that by his own standard, Reid “should lose his entire Hispanic vote over this.”

Guess what: It happens to be true that Reid did introduce such a bill. And it was indefensible. But here’s the thing: I’ve learned that Reid already apologized profusely for this in a speech in 2006, admitted he was wrong, and described this as the “low point” of his career. In other words, Reid himself agrees that it was indefensible.

Interesting, but that didn’t happen in a bubble, either.  The first big push for amnesty came in 2006, too, and came from Ted Kennedy while Reid was minority leader.  It’s one way that Reid’s record shows that he moved a lot more towards the Left the longer he stayed in Washington.  But also, this was Reid’s position for 13 years.  Was Reid a self-described extremist during this period?


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

Nice to see one journalist doing their job.

But I’m not holding my breath waiting for the rest of the kneepads to report this.

Del Dolemonte on August 13, 2010 at 12:18 PM

That’s gonna leave a mark…

Heh

dogsoldier on August 13, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Karma.

Wethal on August 13, 2010 at 12:19 PM

But I’m not holding my breath waiting for the rest of the kneepads to report this.

Del Dolemonte on August 13, 2010 at 12:18 PM

But it will make for nice ads for Sharron Angle, especially if the “I don’t know why any Hispanic could vote Republican” clip is included.

Wethal on August 13, 2010 at 12:20 PM

1993, the last year that harry red actually represented Nevadans.

VegasRick on August 13, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Uh oh?

That’s about the reaction I would expect Olbermann to utter in staff meeting, just prior to screaming “THIS NEVER GETS ON AIR AT MSNBC!”

BobMbx on August 13, 2010 at 12:21 PM

I expect loud denunciation of Harry Reid by the Left for even thinking of this in 3…2…1…

Chirping crickets, the Leftist Chorus.

ajacksonian on August 13, 2010 at 12:21 PM

I’m surprised this isn’t campaign ad already.

JamesLee on August 13, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Now that is some serious PWNAGE!

WisCon on August 13, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Don’t count on the MSM to spread this news. Harry is yet another case of “I was for it before I was against it”. This idiots will spew or embrace anything they feel will further their insane agendas.

ZeeMI on August 13, 2010 at 12:22 PM

*These (sp)

ZeeMI on August 13, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Oh dis is juicy!!

canopfor on August 13, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Wait, I don’t understand why the MSM is wearing kneepads.

GTR640 on August 13, 2010 at 12:24 PM

If this was The Gong Show, they’d bring the hook out right now for Harry.

Emperor Norton on August 13, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Nothing much to see here. This definitely falls into the “broken clock” category (“even a broken clock is right twice a day” — although with Reid, it should be twice a career. We’re still waiting for the second time).

rmgraha on August 13, 2010 at 12:27 PM

SEC. 503. LIMITED BENEFITS FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS.

(a) DIRECT FEDERAL FINANCIAL BENEFITS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no direct Federal financial benefit or social insurance benefit may be paid, conferred, or otherwise given, on or after the date of enactment of this Act, to any alien not lawfully admitted to the United States as a permanent resident or a refugee except pursuant to a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act: Provided, however, That Federal reimbursement of emergency medical care provided to such an alien may be provided under such regulations as the Secretary of Health and Human Services may in his or her discretion prescribe.

(b) UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS- No alien who has not been granted employment authorization pursuant to Federal law shall be eligible for unemployment compensation under an unemployment compensation law of a State or the United States.

Way to go, Harry!

BobMbx on August 13, 2010 at 12:27 PM

In any case, this shows the utter hypocrisy of Harry Reid and Democrats in general…

Democrats? Hypocritical?

That’s pretty much a given. I just hope Dem voters will someday wise up to it, and not focus so much on their hatred of Republicans…which overrides criticism of their own party most of the time.

Seems all Dems can do these days is bash Repubs. How often do they, or can they, sing the praises of their party and their president?

JetBoy on August 13, 2010 at 12:30 PM

How this guy could possibly win re-election is beyond me.

I’m sure Chris Matthews will focus on this story today /

davek70 on August 13, 2010 at 12:31 PM

1993, the last year that harry red actually represented Nevadans, United States Citizens.

VegasRick on August 13, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Fishoutofwater on August 13, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Want it to leave a big long lasting stink? Have the bill in its exact wording reintroduced by a republican-call it the Reid Bill–Regulating Entitlement Immigration Determination. His legacy and namesake.

canditaylor68 on August 13, 2010 at 12:33 PM

I have used Kleenex that would make a better Senator than Harry Reid.

Anyone who has ever cast a vote for walking, talking toilet Harry Reid, should give up voting for the next several lifetimes.

Because it ain’t your game, obviously.

NoDonkey on August 13, 2010 at 12:35 PM

The journalism schools and the MSM banned this kind of stuff.

Why would anyone report something like this? The reporter is nuts or an enemy of Reid, no doubt. Ha. Catch 22. Don’t cover it. It is like the nutty racists with Rev. Wright.

It scares people when when a crazed investigator just reports news. The crazy book, Culture of Corruption, was written by some woman whose name I can’t remember. She has almost two decades in the job and keeps going at it.

IlikedAUH2O on August 13, 2010 at 12:35 PM

So Harry Reid introduced this bill in 1993, when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, and Bill Clinton was President. But those evil, horrible, Hispanic-hating Republicans never passed it during all those years they controlled the Senate (1995-2006), even when Jorge Arbusto was President.

Sharron Angle, call up Kerry Picket!!!

Steve Z on August 13, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Good grief!! It’s Bush’s fault. That’s always the answer.

chai on August 13, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Wait, I don’t understand why the MSM is wearing kneepads.

GTR640 on August 13, 2010 at 12:24 PM

I have read that they have special obowma logos on them.

lukespapa on August 13, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Well duh….
Reid didn’t read that bill either.
So what if he introduced it.

SnowSun on August 13, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Merely proof that a good man can grow and mature in office. Harry should be commended for having the courage to change his mind as he continually tries to do what is best for his constituents.:)

a capella on August 13, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Shocked, Shocked I tell you. Harry Reid is a HYPOCRIT?? The Hell I say. Harry Reid is a good, kind, honest, decent man with good intention….

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

:) In other news, the sky will remain blue, grass green, and oceans deep. The hypocrisy of liberalism is one of the foundational building blocks of the universe – you can have faith in it, don’t worry.

WashingtonsWake on August 13, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Meh, no one will care. If anyone ever asks, Harry will just issue some statement that is essentially the political equivalent of ‘I was young and I needed the money’ and all will be forgiven. Being a Democrat means never having to say you’re sorry, and it also means never having to explain why you’re a hypocrite.

djm1992 on August 13, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Reid… a racist… by his own standards? NOOOOOO

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Merely proof that a good man can grow and mature in office. Harry should be commended for having the courage to change his mind as he continually tries to do what is best for his constituents.:)

a capella on August 13, 2010 at 12:38 PM

This!

Johnnyreb on August 13, 2010 at 12:41 PM

I don’t see how any Hispanic could be a Democrat. /s

Mojave Mark on August 13, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Want it to leave a big long lasting stink? Have the bill in its exact wording reintroduced by a republican-call it the Reid Bill–Regulating Entitlement Immigration Determination. His legacy and namesake.

canditaylor68 on August 13, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Send this suggestion to your GOP Senator or congressman. It would be a great political stunt with potential to sway elections.

cartooner on August 13, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Some Senator should re-introduce the bill, with the exact same language as Reid used.

The Monster on August 13, 2010 at 12:42 PM

I don’t see how any Hispanic could be a Democrat. /s

Mojave Mark on August 13, 2010 at 12:41 PM

I don’t see how anybody could be a Democrat

VegasRick on August 13, 2010 at 12:44 PM

That’s Senator Sharron Angle.

Emperor Norton on August 13, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Big deal. The Dems recently honored a Senator who was an official of the Klu Klux Klan. If the MSM deals with this at all, they’ll just use it as an example of Reid’s “growth” while in office.

PackerBronco on August 13, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Reid… a racist… by his own standards? NOOOOOO

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 12:41 PM

MeatHeadinCA:Yuppers:)
==========================================================
Harry Reid Doesn’t Like Smelly Tourists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP6qeBPl_HA

canopfor on August 13, 2010 at 12:51 PM

The Monster on August 13, 2010 at 12:42 PM

my thoughts exactly

cmsinaz on August 13, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Now hold on! Reid introduced the bill: but since he’s a Democrat, there’s nothing to say he had any idea what was in it.

PersonFromPorlock on August 13, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Some words from the man that wrote the 14th Amendment: The 14th Amendment Canard

I don’t see the need to change the 14th, all we need to do is interpret it as it is written. Why is that so hard?

slickwillie2001 on August 13, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Which just proves….Democrats aren’t looking to Hispanics and amnesty as some grand thing they embrace, and love. It’s all about getting their votes, because they know they’ve lost a vast majority of the LEGAL votes in this country.

capejasmine on August 13, 2010 at 12:54 PM

One more thought! Just how stupid are some people, that believe this is about love, and tolerance, and a better way? How stuck on stupid does one have to be, before they realize….they’re being used???????

capejasmine on August 13, 2010 at 12:55 PM

On the other hand, the proviso of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the language of the 14th Amendment leaves a good basis for courts to determine a meaning that requires one parent to either be a citizen or to have entered the country legally.

It is cut and dried for me that the offspring of an illegal is not a birthright citizen, based on the 14th amendment, though someone with my level of intelligence and common sense may be hard to find on a federal bench.

Vashta.Nerada on August 13, 2010 at 12:55 PM

though someone with my level of intelligence and common sense may be hard to find on a federal bench.

Vashta.Nerada on August 13, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Which is not to say I’m anything special, just that judges seem to be lacking in both intelligence and common sense these days.

Vashta.Nerada on August 13, 2010 at 12:57 PM

to protect American workers from unfair labor competition,

Oh. A labor union bill.

Count to 10 on August 13, 2010 at 1:07 PM

As noted, the elephant in the room when it comes to “birthright” citizenship is the actual wording of the 14th Amendment.

The first sentence of Section 1 of that Amendment reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

If those who argue that, merely being born within the borders of the U.S. automatically bestows U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment (birthright citizenship), are right, then that leaves those words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” without any meaning, mere superfluous language put there for no reason whatsoever (other than to sound “fancy” I guess).

This is painfully clear and can be clearly demonstrated simply by removing them and seeing what effect that has on that portion of the Amendment. So, doing that we get:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

What is left when you remove those bothersome words, is the EXACT language needed to clearly bestow “birthright citizenship” upon anyone born in the U.S.!

A fundamental concept utilized by courts across the nation in interpreting statutes or constitutional provisions is NOT to apply an interpretation that renders plain language meaningless (courts are not to insert language that does not exist, nor ignore language that does) – But see the “P.S.” below!

So, it is abundantly clear that the 14th Amendment does not, and was never intended to, bestow citizenship upon a child whose mother manages to be physicially present in the U.S. at the moment of birth, regardless of whether that presence is legal or not. There IS NO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP in the U.S. Constitution!!

P.S. Of course, this simple maxim of intepretation does not apply when our courts decide to apply the power of their oligarchy and “find” rights that do not exist or “ignore” rights that clearly do. As stated previously, we do NOT live in a Constitutional Republic, we live under a judicial Oligarchy wherein ANY law passed by the people or the people’s representatives is subject to judicial approval which was just clearly demonstrated by the absolute exercise of power applied by a federal judge in California (and as has been repeatedly demonstrated by the U.S. Supreme Court – the “real” absolute power in this nation)

Fatal on August 13, 2010 at 1:11 PM

The author of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob M. Howard, stated, in reference to the Amendment, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

That seems to imply that even babies born to people here legally on visas don’t get automatic citizenship.

Count to 10 on August 13, 2010 at 1:12 PM

bwahahahahahah
bwawhahahahahah

Harry Reid forgot he was “racist.” LMHAO!

Rescind birthright citizenship….LOL!

The Race Card on August 13, 2010 at 1:14 PM

PULLLLLEEEEZE!
Will someone scream this from the rooftops ?!?!?!
Wonder how the journolists will handle this ? hmmm

pambi on August 13, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Hypocrisy and Harry Reid just seem to go together like Bacon and Eggs, don’t they?

pilamaye on August 13, 2010 at 1:14 PM

If those who argue that, merely being born within the borders of the U.S. automatically bestows U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment (birthright citizenship), are right, then that leaves those words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” without any meaning, mere superfluous language put there for no reason whatsoever (other than to sound “fancy” I guess).
Fatal on August 13, 2010 at 1:11 PM

…or, that phrase could be there so that people born in places that the US controls but are not US States are to be considered natural born citizens.

Count to 10 on August 13, 2010 at 1:15 PM

It is cut and dried for me that the offspring of an illegal is not a birthright citizen,

So you’re already justifying how poorly you intend to treat these citizens. Good tactic.

The Race Card on August 13, 2010 at 1:16 PM

I’m pretty sure George Bush, during his time managing within the Texas Rangers organization, made Reid introduce that legislation.

ButterflyDragon on August 13, 2010 at 1:22 PM

I’m pretty sure George Bush, during his time managing within the Texas Rangers organization, made Reid introduce that legislation.

ButterflyDragon on August 13, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Nope..it was Cheney. They ran into each other in the mens’ room at Ceasars Palace. Cheney put Reid in a headlock, flushed him a couple times, then told him to get this legislation passed or we’ll start another war in Iraq.

Reid was on the next flight back to DC.

BobMbx on August 13, 2010 at 1:25 PM

So you’re already justifying how poorly you intend to treat these citizens. Good tactic.

The Race Card on August 13, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Illegal is illegal.

It’s like a robber suing his victim because he got hurt in the process of robbing them.

ButterflyDragon on August 13, 2010 at 1:28 PM

By my calculations, those anchor babies born the year this would have been voted into law will be eligible to vote in the 2012 elections.

How many anchor babies have been born since 1993? Anybody? This number would give us something to lay at Reid’s feet in a great Angle ad, eh?

LEBA on August 13, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Bush’s fault.

RBMN on August 13, 2010 at 1:32 PM

…or, that phrase could be there so that people born in places that the US controls but are not US States are to be considered natural born citizens.

Count to 10 on August 13, 2010 at 1:15 PM

This was how it applied to McCain – he was born on a US base in Panama, I think. And when George Romney (Mitt’s father) was running for president, I think his being born in Mexico of American parents was briefly an issue.

Wethal on August 13, 2010 at 1:38 PM

If only Angle could beat him up with his own hypocrisy…

Schadenfreude on August 13, 2010 at 1:38 PM

If only Angle could beat him up with his own hypocrisy…

Schadenfreude on August 13, 2010 at 1:38 PM

According to Geraghty, she is within 2 points (margin of error) in the latest poll. She’s beginning to run ads in response to Harry’s.

Wethal on August 13, 2010 at 1:40 PM

…or, that phrase could be there so that people born in places that the US controls but are not US States are to be considered natural born citizens.

Count to 10 on August 13, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Nope, that would still leave it as excess language or would require a change of wording. This argument fails in either of two ways, based solely on the language in the first part of the sentence!

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . .”

Either “in the United States” means within the actual 50 states and all territories or commonwealths of the U.S. – which covers the people you are referring to and would render the “subject to the jurisdiction language” superflous again.

OR

If you interpret “in the United States” to mean ONLY within the actual 50 states, then in order to bestow citizenship on “people born in places that the US controls but are not US States” you would use the word “OR”, not the word “AND”. Thus it would read:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States OR subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

But, that’s not what it says and interpreting it in a manner which would require a change of wording is not a valid method of interpretation.

Fatal on August 13, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Wait, I don’t understand why the MSM is wearing kneepads.

GTR640 on August 13, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Because they’re on sale right now at the WH gift shop?

leilani on August 13, 2010 at 1:48 PM

If those who argue that, merely being born within the borders of the U.S. automatically bestows U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment (birthright citizenship), are right, then that leaves those words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” without any meaning, mere superfluous language put there for no reason whatsoever (other than to sound “fancy” I guess).

Diplomats are not subjected to the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s the plainest reading of the clause.

So, it is abundantly clear that the 14th Amendment does not, and was never intended to, bestow citizenship upon a child whose mother manages to be physicially present in the U.S. at the moment of birth, regardless of whether that presence is legal or not. There IS NO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP in the U.S. Constitution!!

As there was little restriction on immigration into this country at the time, either intentions could have existed, of either granting citizenship to children illegal immigrants or denying it. There was no illegal immigrants. It was the time of the westward expansion. America welcomed people to come settle the frontiers. The original intention, in so far that we can establish one, is probably to make citizens children born to people who came to settle permanently and not those born to incidental visitors.

Perhaps a law that deny citizenship to babies born to holders of visitor’s visa could pass constitutional muster. Denying it to those born to illegal immigrants whose domicile is clearly America will be hard.

year_of_the_dingo on August 13, 2010 at 1:57 PM

I would have no problem granting greencards en masse, making them legal to work, but anyone here illegally should forfeit their right to citzenship — ever. We don’t need more criminals here. That doesn’ tmean we couldn’t fix things and allow them to become legal part of the economy, but they should never vote. Allow them to have children here who grow up as americans following the laws, let them vote. Let them be citizens.

WashingtonsWake on August 13, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Awww…come on, now. Don’t you know he just misspoke? I mean, come on, he’s a lib. They NEVER mean what they say. If they do, they only mean it sorta…

Mad Mad Monica on August 13, 2010 at 2:15 PM

As there was little restriction on immigration into this country at the time, either intentions could have existed, of either granting citizenship to children illegal immigrants or denying it. There was no illegal immigrants.

year_of_the_dingo on August 13, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Perhaps, unfortunately the only Supreme Court decision regarding the 14th Amendment (United States vs Wom Kim Ark)was rendered as an exercise of the Supreme Court’s ultimate power over this country as a way of getting around the Chinese Exclusion Act (another clear example of why this country isn’t really a democratic republic, but a judicial oligarchy – when the court doesn’t like a law passed by the people, or the people’s representatives, they simply “interpret” it in a way that court approves of).

However, even that decision would not provide birthright citizenship to current illegals who have slipped across the border in order to plop down an anchor baby. Even the majority in that case limited birhtright citizenship to a child born in the United States of parents who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, (and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory).

So the question surrounding the current issue of anchor babies is still up for argument and, frankly, the dissent in the Wom Kim Ark case have the better argument when applied to the current situation.

Fatal on August 13, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Only lawful residents of the United States are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”! Therefore, as Ed points out, non-residents are, IMHO, not covered under the 14th Amendment.

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on August 13, 2010 at 4:15 PM

I think I found a reason why he (or any RATIONAL person) introduced this legislation that year and the year afterwards, in case no one has thought of this already the truck bombing of the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993.

This legislation was introduced on August 4th, 1993 and can be viewed in its entirety here

SgtSVJones on August 13, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Even the majority in that case limited birhtright citizenship to a child born in the United States of parents who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States.

Illegal immigrants do intend to establish permanent domicile in our country, that’s the thing. The very notion of “anchor baby” confirms it. That the state seeks currently to prevent that is irrelevant. The 14th amendment was enacted in the absence of any cognition of the modern concern of illegal immigration.

year_of_the_dingo on August 13, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Well Harry was correct in getting the existing language clarified into specifics.

However, the concept Harry was trying to clarify already exists in the XIV Amendment, all he was doing was writing it so his constituents could comprehend it.

MSGTAS on August 14, 2010 at 12:46 PM

If you were racist before Bush it doesn’t count. Or something.

Speedwagon82 on August 14, 2010 at 12:47 PM