Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment by Harold Meyerson

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 » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:19 PM
Original message
Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment by Harold Meyerson


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.

By pushing for repeal of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, the GOP appears to have concluded: If you can't win them over -- indeed, if you're doing everything in your power to make their lives miserable -- revoke their citizenship.

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.

Senator, let me know what you think.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why do you have to bring the Conferderate descendants in to this
what war was fought, that the ones who lost were cut off from every being a part of the winning state. This is a stupid statement and you should retract it. Members of the Confederate Army were drafted to fight the war. Why blame a descendant for what SOME AND I SAY SOME, because all people in the South did not condone slavery, but since they were drafted they fought. Some people make statements they don't know the damn first thing about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. the author didn't bring it in, the republicans did, and the author's proposal is not a serious one.
the 14th amendment was a direct consequence of the civil war, as was its specific provision to ensure that descendents of anyone (former slaves, former confederates, or otherwise) would be citizens. when the republicans talk about modifying this, they are bringing up a whole lot of crap from that era.

the author's is clearly opposed to modifying the amendment at all, and just advanced the tongue-in-cheek proposal to let the republicans get their "descendents of illegal immigrants shouldn't be citizens" crap in exchange for "confederate descendents shouldn't be citizens" crap. it's not meant as a serious proposal. on the contrary, it's a reductio ad absurdum proposal -- meant to show how ridiculous the republican's original idea was in the first place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. You do know that I'm not Harold Meyerson, right? That OP's in this forum are editorials & other
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. The OP is actually on to something
lets disregard the Conferederate Soldiars descendents..

Who else could be impacted if the 14th Amendment were to be repealed?

That's right Black Americans.....

This wouldn't be an unintended consequence......I think they are devious and hateful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Raven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. Slippery slope...if you are not a "citizen" you can't vote...if I don't
like your looks,sexual orientation, politics or religion, I'll just further undermine the 14th...after all, it's been amended once so it is not sacrosanct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. poppy bush once said he didn't know if atheists should be citizens
i can't believe how rotten elements can reach the highest levels of power in this country. they don't believe in basic civics, anything like the vision of the founders, the bill of rights, none of it. yet they have held and still hold massive power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gels Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. Actually, I believe
that the rethugs would use this against ANYONE they wanted to get rid of. After there a still a lot of people in this country whose parents were born in Europe etc, and the left during the wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
8. What gets me about the GOP proposal is the enforcement issue
In the case of an unmarried immigrant mother, how do you prove whether the father was a citizen or not? Do you resort to Jerry Springer-style antics where the woman names possible fathers and you haul them in for DNA testing? And at whose expense?

Or what if a woman claims she cheated on her non-citizen husband and the real father of her baby is a US citizen? Do you test for that, too?

Or that she got drunk at a party and has no idea who the father is but he could be a citizen.

For that matter, if there really are women trying to have an "anchor baby" to stay in the US, I could theoretically see sperm banks selling "US citizen sperm."

In other words, they're proposing to replace a simple, easily proven standard -- where the baby was born -- with one that is convoluted, expensive, and at times almost impossible to enforce.

And that in itself suggests to me that either they're not really serious but are just looking for an election issue -- or else that they have ambitions of imposing the most draconian "guilty unless proven innocent" standard possible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tutankhamun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
9. Watch as the term "anchor baby" is all of a sudden repeated in the conservative/MSM echo chamber
incessantly. This term will be used A LOT in the near future. The right will drill this label into our heads because the well-being of infants and children is often brought up in defense of the 14th Amendment (and immigrants in general).

It would be nice for the Republicans if they could somehow demonize babies, but that's such a reprehensible tactic that they have to be covert about it. The idea is that the baby of an immigrant isn't really a baby. No sir, it's an "anchor." Like a giant metal hook thrown overboard to stop a ship from floating away. It's not a real "baby." Its parents don't love it. It's an "anchor." A pawn. A tool.

What kind of "anchor" takes 21 years before it can even possibly begin working towards securing the ship?

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 Tue Jan 16th 2018, 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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