Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Public evenly split on changing 14th amendment?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:43 PM
Original message
Public evenly split on changing 14th amendment?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/publ...


Public evenly split on changing 14th amendment?

An amazing finding, just in from CNN:

As you may know, the Constitution says that all children born in the United States are automatically U.S. citizens regardless of their parents' status. Would you favor or oppose a Constitutional amendment to prevent children born here from becoming U.S. citizens unless their parents are also U.S. citizens?

Favor 49%

Oppose 51%

No opinion 1%


The public is just about evenly split on whether to repeal birthright citizenship. Hey, what's another Constitutional amendment between friends, anyway?

Perhaps this reflects frustration with the government's failure to solve the illegal immigration problem. Or perhaps the decision by some GOP officials to openly flirt with changing the 14th amendment is succeeding in legitimizing the idea. Or maybe both those factors are combining to produce a toxic result: The mainstreaming of ideas that by any measure should be dismissed as extreme by public officials and voters alike.

Oh, one other result in the poll: A solid majority, 60 percent, favors the $26 billion in aid for teachers. A majority of independents, 57 percent, also favors it. Only Republicans oppose it.

By Greg Sargent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Supporting illegal immigration is a losing strategy with many voters
I dont know why that isnt acknowledged by our party, but its true.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. So the 14th amendment was put into place in 1868...
..to support illegal immigration?

Really? That's what it's about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. No, but thats the main thrust of it today considering slaves arent legal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. It's not a matter of "supporting illegal immigration"
as it is our side just not being able to communicate worth a damn on any major issue, and in this case it would be explaining the degree to which this issue itself has been inflated exponentially to the point of fear mongering. It would be explaining that the way to deal with it would not be modifying the constitution for such a comparatively miniscule problem, but making harsher punishment for those who hire illegals and make it appealing for them to be here in the first place.

Of course "our side" is content to just watch the right get out there, talk about something ad nauseum, spray their bile all over an entire debate, wait to see how the public reacts, and then come out with mealy mouthed statements and positions that do nothing.

So yeah. What I mean to say is it's a bit more complicated than our side supporting illegal immigration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. +1000. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
28. Why hasn't the fact that Romney should be named illegal then
his grandparents were not citizens of this country his father was born in Mexico. What does that make Mitt. He can't run for president either if he had illegals for a father.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Who supports illegal immigration?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. Anyone who would offer amnesty to illegals for expediency's sake. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. Is the 14th amendment expedient?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
37. Supporting illegal immigration is a winning issue with politicians, though
Virtually the entire food industry is built on the backs of illegal workers. Big ag won't allow meaningful change in immigration reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
38. A child born in this nation is not by any definition illegal or an immigrant.
They are natural born citizens of the United States of America with all of the rights and privileges that status conveys and came to it as honestly as you or your parents.

The whole concept is born of racisim, a mad scramble to maintain white privilege, and first magnitude classism. This same shit happens with every wave of immigration and with every group that isn't of the "cream" of western Europe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Once again we let the republicans dictate the terms.....
Democrats (and the media of course) allowed them to yammer on for weeks about this subject (which prior to that NOBODY was talking about it or could even probably identify the 14th amendment). Meanwhile "our side" had nobody out there countering this bullshit or presenting the opposing side.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NC_Nurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Most people don't really understand the consequences. They think this will
Only effect illegal immigrants. Just another reminder of the short attention span and lack of critical thinking that has come to characterize much of the American public. Sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Who else would it affect besides illegal aliens seeking to drop anchor in the US?
:shrug:

OK, I guess maybe legal tourists who happen to be in-country near their due date would not get the benefit of a US citizen child, but how often does that happen?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. Children who have grown up here and know no other life.
Imagine if you were one? Would your citizenship be revoked?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. No ex post facto laws, so no, citizenship would not be revoked. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. So you're saying that changing the constitution would be limited by...the constitution
The guarantee that there will be no ex post facto laws? from the constitution. The 14th amendment...to the constitution. Just because one came before the other does not mean anything legally, all constitutional rules are on the same legal plane. So you could substitute 'No child born of a non-US citizen can be a citizen, notwithstanding article 1 section 10,' and make millions of people illegal on the spot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. I kind of like the idea by Harold Meyerson in today's Washington Post.
Since it was put into place to allow those who fought a treasonous war against the USA to regain their citizenship and that of their children, maybe if it's eliminated, we can revoke the citizenship of Confederate descendants.

"So, the question for Lindsey Graham is: Are you serious about revoking the citizenship of 4 million children, their children and their children's children? How about a package deal: Stripping their citizenship in return for stripping the citizenship of Confederate descendants. A sort of Missouri Compromise for our times. Bipartisanship in action."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Um, Meyerson has it way wrong.
Birthright citizenship was intended to ensure that the children of former slaves were recognized as citizens, not children of the Confederacy. When his premise is so blatantly wrong, I don't think there's any need to read further.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #26
40. Incorrect
Meyerson does not claim the 14th amendment restored the Confederates' right to vote, but refers to that as part of Reconstruction in general. Regarding voting rights for the armies of the South, he means the Amnesty Acts, which gave Confederate soldiers back the right to vote, hold office, recover property and so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NC_Nurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
30. Everybody who gives birth in the U.S. willl have to prove their citizenship.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 02:52 PM by NC_Nurse
How else can they enforce this. Show me your papers will be the new rule in the delivery rooms of America. That's what we need, more bullshit paperwork to deal with in the hospital. Ifnyou don't have your proof of citizenship at the time of the birth, what kind of clusterf@ck do you think you will be dealing with after the fact?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
31. The 14th Amendment deals with the rights of citizens
so it affects more than immigrants...it affects blacks, women and gays also - Due process and equal protections under the law...

The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving people (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive rights and procedural rights.



The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.


It also provides for our Representation in Congress i.e. the number per state and prevents disinfranchisement of voting rights.

There's a lot more to it then immigration.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. And nobody is suggesting any change to #14 other than birthright citizenship
which makes me wonder what the point of your post was.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. They are talking about doing away with the whole
amendment...what's your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. That is not true. Cite?
Nobody talks about "doing away with" the 14th. There is some discussion of amending it to get rid of birthright citizenship.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
35. I associate the term anchor babies with racists such as Russell Pearce.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 04:07 PM by mmonk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'd believe this one: "50% of public do not know what an 'amendment' is, let alone what the 14th one
states."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. +1
People would change their minds if they knew what went into changing the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. The problem isn't illegal immigration, it's employers who take advantage of illegals immigrants.
They are the ones we should be going after. If there are no jobs, people won't be so likely to try to sneak into the country.

We should streamline the immigration process, make it quicker, less costly, and let those who want to become citizens become citizens.

And we should go after the people who take advantage of those who are willing to work for so little, because they know they can.

Everybody deserves a fair chance, and equal opportunities. The system we have now is ripe for abuse.

Aren't most "Americans" immigrants anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
22. Agreed...
If those who employ illegal immigrants are fined and imprisoned, the "problem" with illegal immigration would disappear overnight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
8. I swear
The first person I hear recently even bring this up is Russell Pearce. He got some legislation passed that made national news such as guns in bars, no need to get a permit for conceal carry, the SB1070, and now this is picking up steam in the national press. How can a State Senator from my district cause so much shit in little time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marginlized Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
10. They're really after Due Process and Equal Protection n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. True.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. the amazing thing to me
is that 51% oppose. That has been consistent now for a decade too.

"ideas that by any measure should be dismissed as extreme"

that's sort of a funny category. Where can we find these measures?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustAnotherGen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
13. Same old same old
Some people are 'more equal' than others. I in no way shape or form support this bullsh*t idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
19. Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

As Lindsey Graham and his fellow Republicans explain it, their sudden turn against conferring citizenship on anyone born in the United States was prompted by the mortal threat of "anchor babies" -- the children of foreigners who scurry to the States just in time to give birth to U.S. citizens.

The Republican war on the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is indeed directed at a mortal threat -- but not to the American nation. It is the threat that Latino voting poses to the Republican Party.

By proposing to revoke the citizenship of the estimated 4 million U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants -- and, presumably, the children's children and so on down the line -- Republicans are calling for more than the creation of a permanent noncitizen caste. They are endeavoring to solve what is probably their most crippling long-term political dilemma: the racial diversification of the electorate. Not to put too fine a point on it, they are trying to preserve their political prospects as a white folks' party in an increasingly multicolored land.

Absent a constitutional change -- to a lesser degree, even with it -- those prospects look mighty bleak. The demographic base of the Republican Party, as Ruy Teixeira demonstrates in a paper released by the Center for American Progress this summer, is shrinking as a share of the nation and the electorate. As the nation grows more racially and religiously diverse, Teixeira shows, its percentage of white Christians will decline to just 35 percent of the population by 2040.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repubs used to rely on the repeated use of the term "amnesty" to fire up its base and stop any discussion of comprehensive reform. They must have felt the need (pressure from teabaggers this election cycle) to add "anchor babies" to their list of emotionally charged terms that they can throw into the discussion.

Since they will undoubtedly use immigration as a wedge issue again in 2012, I wonder if they already have a focus group working on new buzz words for the next election cycle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
20. Here's a link to the complete poll of 1,009 people ....
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/11/rel11a1a...


Here's another good one:

Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their
marriage recognized by law as valid?

Aug. 6-10
2010
Yes 52%
No 46%
No opinion 2%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
24. 50% of the Public don't have a clue what the 14th, or any other, Amendment says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arbusto_baboso Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
29. This is why we don't put issues of rights up to a vote.
Or shouldn't, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 02nd 2014, 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC