August 13, 2010

Don't dare discuss the birthright citizenship clause!

Mark Krikorian notes how crazy the Left is getting over the mere discussion of ending (or revising) the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provision. Here's Ali Noorani, head of the National Immigration Forum: “It puts the United States of America on the brink of legalizing apartheid.”

Except that, South Africa doesn't allow birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, which makes it part of the very large majority 84% of the planet's nations that doesn't allow such! So ... S.A. is still practicing apartheid? Tell that to Nelson Mandela.

Next is Subhash Kateel, "a community organizer with the Florida Immigrant Coalition in Miami”: “The discussion of taking away citizenship is unconstitutional, un-American and flat-out racist.”

First, ex post facto laws are what's unconstitutional, so any amendment that modifies the 14th Amendment couldn't "take away" anyone's current citizenship. Second, the latter part of the statement is as asinine as that which the LGOMB's Delaware Dunce said back on August 3rd -- that those who wish to change the birthright provision are "anti-constitutional conservatives. Or unconstitutional conservatives." How can changing a provision in an amendment -- via another amendment -- be "unconstitutional"?? I mean, hello??

As for the "racist" complaint -- YAAAAWWN.

UPDATE: Hey look! Harry Reid himself once supported modifying the birthright provision -- back in 1993!

Posted by Hube at August 13, 2010 11:52 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Was Wrongly decided ?

Posted by: Fred Gregory at August 13, 2010 04:00 PM

RWR: Very true. I got caught up in thinking about a "law" as opposed to an actual [new] part of the Constitution. Thanks for the correction.

Fred: From what I read of the case in the link you provided, there was no [blanket] retroactive revoking of Wong's citizenship. It was a case, it seems, of testing the fairly new 14th Amendment's birthright clause (the Customs officials in San Fran believed that Wong's circumstances did not actually make him a citizen), and it ultimately did so in Wong's favor. In any case, it wasn't a new law that would have been ex post facto; it was a matter of interpreting an existing constitutional provision.

Posted by: Hube at August 13, 2010 05:52 PM

It's not the wording or intent of the 14th that allows for ancor babies (birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegal imigrants) it is a footnote in a Supreme Court Decision.

Also, if the wife of the Mexican Embassador gives birth in Washington DC tomorrow, that child will not be a US citizen (per the 14th amdnt).

Posted by: anonni at August 16, 2010 03:27 PM