And how is this not an "assault on the Constitution"?

Perhaps they could make it apply retroactively, say to children born in the 1960s in Hawaii of a Kenyan father?

How about we make it retroactive to say.... 1492. That way no one in this country is a US citizen.

Does the term "melting pot" really mean nothing to these jackasses?

Have any Dems/Libs proposed removing the federal law that AZ wants to work off of?

Can we do away with the phrase "In fairness." Do you ever see or hear one of them using it? No. You don't.

This amendment will never pass, of course. And I say to Graham and the Repugs, keep pushing this. Fire up the racists in your party. Bring the Latinos who vote Republican down to 0%.

Maybe he just thinks Gastarbeiter sounds cook.

When I saw the scenes in Arizona on TV, I just got the thought that I was seeing Kristolnacht all over again.And yes, I am that old.

Men in South Carolina have a life expectancy of only 71.4 years... In Wash DC it's 68.5 years. in Cuba it's 76.5 years, I think that Senator Graham should look to fix his own state and DC before trying to fix the constitution...

Does he care? Who knows?

To see what would happen if this proposal went into effect, we could look at Japan, where there is an ethnic Korean minority that until recently didn't have citizenship rights despite having parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents born in Japan.

graham is still a reasonable republican, as in reasonable for a republican. compare him with say jon kyl or james inhofe. reasonable is a relative term.

Me thinks the real reason they want to repeal the 14th Amendment has more to do with Section 3.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

And, Amending the Constitution is such an easy task-I forget; does it only need fifty votes in the Senate, or are sixty required? Either way, go for it, Senator!

Sorry, but I really love the irony of the senior senator from South Carolina looking to change the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Here's hoping Lindsey announces the text of his changes at Fort Sumter!

Fine, but why stop with immigrant babies? Why should the children of citizens be automatically granted citizenship? Shouldn't we allow the invisible hand of the free market to determine citizenship?
Coming soon to the Libertarian Party platform.

Gee, I thought the Constitution was this infallible, unalterable document, next best thing to the Bible. (Or perhaps, if you believe God was the co-author, on the same level as the Bible.)

So howcome these Constitution-worshipers keep finding "mistakes" in the sacred text?

The Republicans suggest a lot of idiotic stuff, but it is incumbent upon Democrats to respond intelligently and reasonably. It will be extremely ironic (as well as extremely dangerous) if the Democrats end up losing the immigration issue because they got bamboozled into defending positions that most Americans feel are absurd.

The fact is that most Americans do not believe that we should have open borders. Most Americans do not believe that anyone should be allowed entry to the U.S. and citizenship upon demand. So many Americans ask, quite logically, why should someone come across the border, illegally, on Monday, and deliver a baby on Tuesday, and have the baby be an American citizen?

This is not the 19th Century. It is not self-evident that the rules of citizenship that made sense 100 or 200 years ago still make sense in the 21st century.

And it is absurd to suggest that amending the Constitution is an "assault on the Constitution". The Constitution expressly allows for its Amendment. If you oppose and Amendment, fine. Just don't attack the process.

We all know that among those who want to change the immigration and citizenship laws are stone cold racists. But not everybody is. There are completely non-racist reasons to have a policy of citizenship that doesn't include automatic citizenship by birth on U.S. soil. It would be tragic if, in a fit of politically-correct self-rigteousness, the Democrats lost the public on this issue and pushed average Americans into the arms or racist reactionaries.

Look, many of the people who want to

At least Graham knows enough to suggest the correct "solution" to the "problem." More than you can say for most members of the tea party.

By the way, any idea how hard it really is to amend the Constitutioni. Graham does and he realizes this stunt do anything except please the base.

It would be tragic if, in a fit of politically-correct self-rigteousness, the Democrats lost the public on this issue and pushed average Americans into the arms or racist reactionaries.
Posted by: square1

So in this fit of wanting to give other nationalities citizenship it will somehow make average Americans racists ? The logic is askew.

Nice try, but Amendments aren't some Podunk City's out dated non-sense law, it's there for a reason. You are assuming that I think like you and that Dems are posturing, without considering that I personally like the 14th Amendment. Never mind the fact that posturing is usually done to carry votes, not turn them away as you suggest.

I'm sure there are plenty of 14th Amendment repealers that aren't racist because I hear about those border jumping Canadians all the time. That was sarcasm in case you missed it.

It's also a bullshit argument to hide between "repealing the 14th Amendment" as if debating the citizenship laws necessitates debating the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.

And, of course, those panicked expectant parents will need to remember to take their own birth certificates or citizenship papers to the hospital, along with the baby stuff and things for mom, when the baby is on the way -- how else can they avoid having the new little bundle of joy being considered stateless, and subject to internment and deportation?

Modern movement conservatis is all about attacking the very concept of a social contract.

After all, the rugged individualists who advocate movement conservative positions "earned" everything they have entirely on their own, so they claim that taxation is theft -- a bizarre concept that's been discredited since at least Hobbes' time.

"pregnant women from other countries coming to the U.S. 'to drop a child.'"

"DROP a child"?!?!?!

Revolting.

graham is still a reasonable republican, as in reasonable for a republican. compare him with say jon kyl or james inhofe. reasonable is a relative term.

I disagree. When the likes of Graham, Collins and Snowe vote in lockstep with Saxby Chambliss, Jeff Sessions, Kyl and Inhofe-- and they do -- "reasonable Republican" has no meaning at all -- a fact the Democratic Party would do well to point out.

We already have an erosion of the middle class. The aim is to have two classes: the wealthy and the poor. The poor will get wise and not vote against their own self-interest at some point. So we preempt that with taking some voting rights away. They already started that with using driver's licenses as ID at the poll when most of the poor can't afford to drive. The only reason I would go for a national ID card, which they really haven't pushed for this reason: everyone would get one and it would be harder to suppress the vote using it. Better to keep after the DL as ID, which some will not bother to get if they can't afford to drive. Not to mention that the DL has multiple steps to obtain, including driving experience and a car to take a test in.

I must say that, while for you all that 14th amendment may feel holy, I've always found it absurd. Reminds me of an old Russian fairy tale, where two peasants came to the king to settle their dispute: the mare of one of the peasants gave birth under the horse cart of the other peasant. To whom should the foal belong? The peasant who owns the cart? Or the peasant who owns the mare?

Most folks who bitch about birthright citizenship also cite statistics that purport to show that in various welfare hospitals in border states (like California and Arizona) there is a shockingly high percentage of births to illegally resident mothers.

But in fact (you SHOULD look this up, Steve), what is happening is that any hospital that can, will turn away a mom in labor if she doesn't have insurance. So these folks all wind up at welfare hospitals, which have to accept them -- and in California, especially (but also in Arizona and elsewhere), when a mom is in labor in the emergency room and has no health insurance, the hospital will often refrain from recording an SSN, as well.

Why? Because they get reimbursed faster that way -- it's a Medicaid/MediCal thing, an accounting trick that has nothing to do with the 14th amendment.

Facts count.

The objective is to disenfrachise the poor. The R's are crazy like foxes when it comes to this. A lot of racists out there and people who feel our "culture" is endangered will go for this without knowing that it can eventually be turned against them as well. Just when will someone become a citizen then? If only children of citizens can become citizens, the right to vote will dwindle away with decreasing population levels until only the elite can vote.

Is it chance that R's pulverized ACORN for helping the poor (of all ethnic groups)to register to vote? Who will be out there doing that in 2010 and 2012? Is it by chance that they are busting teacher's unions and all unions? In Texas they have made it illegal for school districts to deduct campaign contributions from teacher's paycheck (upon the teacher's request) and forward the contributions through their credit unions to the political party of choice. The main reason was publicly stated to limit funds that go to democrats since most teachers are democrats. Is it any wonder they go after trial lawyers? They have been deliberately and systematically pulverizing the democratic party base. Wake up people!!!!

Look, I know y'all think I am some kind of loon but I haven't voted for a Republican since John Anderson in 1980.

My college educated, fluent in English, employed in a high tech field, wife took over a year before she could immigrate to the US.

I used to live in England, and had a child there with my first wife, and was told by everyone that being born in England didn't give you citizenship.

It ain't the end of the world to not allow parents who are here illegally from giving their children US citizenship.

Why is it OK for the US to be so different from the rest of the world in granting citizenship yet you point out that the US so different, and still is, when it comes to health care?

"Why should the children of citizens be automatically granted citizenship? "

If memory serves, at some point in the recent past children born abroad of citizens who were born abroad did not get automatic citizenship.

I'd second what neil said. Other countries don't grant automatic citizenship based on being born in the country. It's not unreasonable.

"Is it chance that R's pulverized ACORN for helping the poor (of all ethnic groups)to register to vote? " from alwayshopeful @ 4:42

Upon reading this comment, I realized is it also chance that the same people who basically lied to bring down ACORN, also orchestrated an attack against Shirley Sherrod? And the speech she was giving was not about racism as claimed, but about Ms. Sherrod saying that the poor needed to stick together to help each other.

As a Canadian, I support Neil's view. The US has an immigration problem, moreover, and making snarky remarks doesn't cut it in the real world of non-political junkies. I hope Dems solve it cleverly because it could blow up.

But I'm not seeing interesting ideas here.

The problem I have with this isn't the concept of birthright citizenship -- like others, not sure it's holy, nor do I think it really works that well any more. (Though how one goes about solving this is something I'll have to consider a tad more. There's got to be a way to be equitable, while also preventing obvious abuse.)

The problem (if it can be called that) I have is that this is just another in a long line of what is, in all likelihood, a move meant to appease an increasingly racist base. Graham doesn't have a lot of pals on the rabid right, and this may be a way for him to shore up support.

Just another dog whistle for a Southern Strategy that was supposed to be dead.

"If the media has any sense, this should kill the narrative that Lindsey Graham is a maverick or a reasonable Republican."

I thought that we established long ago that the media has no sense when it comes to telling the complete truth about the crazy ideas Republicans are currently espousing.

Agree with Neil Wilson, a, and Bob Wilson.

Maybe Graham is trying to repair his reputation with the hysterical right; maybe he actually believes this stuff.

He's pandering, no doubt about it.

As for the narrative about Lindsey Graham being "reasonable" or "moderate," that won't die easy. The press love him the way they loved McCain. And we see how long it took them to wise up to McCain.

The US has an immigration problem, moreover, and making snarky remarks doesn't cut it in the real world of non-political junkies

And in the "real world", just how much of that problem is actually a result of the Fourteenth Amendment granting birthright citizenship?

Conservative columnist Steve Chapman had an op-ed about this issue in last month's Chicago Tribune (The dangerous myths about 'anchor babies'):

True, an undocumented adult can be sponsored for a resident visa by a citizen child — but not till the kid reaches age 21. To imagine that Mexicans are risking their lives crossing the border in 2010 to gain legal status in 2031 assumes they put an excessive weight on the distant future.

Nor are the other alleged freebies very enticing. Some of the main benefits available to undocumented foreigners, such as emergency room care and public education for children, don't require them to have a U.S. citizen child. Illegal immigrant parents are ineligible for welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and the like. They can be deported.

Barring citizenship to their newborn babies wouldn't make these families pack up and go home. It would just put the kids into a legal jeopardy that impedes their assimilation into American society — without appreciably diminishing the number of people going over, under, around or through the border fence.

Punishing innocents without accomplishing anything useful? The opponents of birthright citizenship need an anchor in reality.

Arguing for a change in the amendment because you think the concept is wrong is one thing; linking it to the current immigration battles is a trap that the likes of Graham and Tancredo want you to fall for.

"Why is it OK for the US to be so different from the rest of the world in granting citizenship yet you point out that the US so different(sic), and still is, when it comes to health care?" neil wilson @ 4:45 PM.

The law.
And the fact that this country consists of people who would, in many other countries, still be considered foreigners; even though they and their ancestors may have been here for three or four centuries. This whole "birthright citizenship" brouhaha is nothing more than yet another attempt by the Republicans to divide and conquer. If Republicans were really worried about the influx of illegal immigrants there is a simple way to stop or drastically reduce the flow: substantive fines and/or imprisonment for anyone who hires an illegal immigrant. I'm certain you've heard all about the numerous bills introduced by various Republican Representatives and Senators, right? Oh, wait...

Expect Lindsey to be a batshit crazy wingnut from now on. He is already being lambasted by the teabagger as a RINO and the threat of being primaried is looming, several would be candidates are already making noise here about running so any pretense of being moderate or sane will go by the wayside for now.

How many children are we talking about? How does this problem that Graham sees actually manifest itself right now? Apparently there must be some young people walking around who are citizens, but whose parents are not citizens. Why is this a problem?

Bouie's comment is breathtaking in its absolute lack of any intellectual content or attempt at logical reasoning. She simply states a conclusion and uses the conclusion as evidence for the conclusion. Many logicians are no doubt reaching for their Xantax.

Lindsay Graham may be positioning himself for a run at the Republican nomination in 2012. His position taps into a deep-seated feeling by the American people that millions of illegals are thumbing their noses of the laws of the United States. Ridicule him at your peril, because he may be the best we can get from the Republicans.

Apparently there must be some young people walking around who are citizens, but whose parents are not citizens. Why is this a problem?
Posted by: Tom in Ma on July 29, 2010 at 11:20 PM

They didn't have to go through the regular bureaucratic hell, that's why. You know: hang in limbo for 2-3 years, worrying about deportation, while your application for the green card is being "processed" (maybe). Then wait another 5 yrs before you qualify for citizenship, apply, and wait another couple to get it... The American way. Kids who just get born into citizenship, without any effort on their part, are deprived of the chance of proving how badly they want it.

I still think that citizenship-by-place-of-birth is screwy but it's on entirely different grounds than those that the Republicans pull out of the meanest recesses of their souls.

Let's phase this plan in by first denying citizenship to anyone born in a territory that has, at any point in history, risen in rebellion against the United States and its Constitution.

As a twelfth-generation Yankee, I'm pretty pissed that some damn son-of-a-Reb is acting like HE deserves to say who gets to be a citizen of my country. He's lucky he's got citizenship himself, and he should just shut the hell up.

"And we see how long it took them [the press] to wise up to McCain."
Posted by: kc on July 29, 2010 at 6:21 PM

This is written in the past tense, implying that it has already happened. I was not aware that any mass-media outlet anywhere has actually done so.
Can anyone provide any indication(s) of any tv network, broadcast or cable / satellite; any radio network; or any newspaper / newsmagazine with or approaching national impact, that has?
(The question is not rhetorical; I would be thrilled to get any positive answers. And, though finding one columnist at a given paper / teevee "personality" on a given network who has done so would be good news, it clearly doesn't warrant concluding that "the press" as a whole have -- especially if it's one of the typical right-wing Dem's that get airtime because, and only because, they reliably parrot the Publican narratives.)

It's worth noting the real purpose of the 14th amendment: it repealed Dred Scott, which was still Constitutional law when the Civil War ended.

Prior to the 14th amendment it was common for someone (like Scott) to be a citizen of the state in which he was living, but NOT a citizen of the United States. The 14th amendment created a truly national citizenship for this country, which had not existed before.

The MEANS by which the 14th amendment did this was birthright citizenship. "All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside..." was a huge step forward in the meaning of America.

There are basically two ways in which countries, including the US, recognize (not grant) citizenship. One is genetics -- you're a citizen if your parents were citizens. Go too far in that exclusive direction, and you're Nazi Germany.

The other is the ground -- if you're born in a country, you're a citizen. Since the 14th, we have both -- and we've always had the law that a child born to a US citizen is also a US citizen, btw.

It is also possible that a person can BECOME a US citizen -- and there are ways (often Constitutionally dubious) to lose citizenship. For example from the late 1920s through roughly 1940, a US citizen woman who married a foreigner lost her citizenship (while a US citizen man who marries a foreign woman always provided lawful status to her).

Graham is obviously dropping a heavy political weight on the right side of the scales in South Carolina -- but methinks more of us should agree with the late Barbara Jordan who said: "I would shed blood before agreeing to altering the 14th amendment."

Extra bonus point: if the 14th amendment had been followed, there would never have been Jim Crow. There is a whole section of the 14th that required that states which prevented lawful voters from casting their ballots to lose Representation in Congress equal to their denial of the right to vote.

I've long thought that birthright citizenship's day has passed. But there would need to be some type of path to citizenship created FIRST. And I know it's not as simple as two sentences. I've heard over and over again about people saying they wanted to come here for a few years just to work and save/send money. But they got married and they've got kids. They don't want to leave now. And I agree with them. I wouldn't either. I believe that the bottom line is that as a PART of reform, birthright should be discussed. But its not going to come from the right.

I don�t really understand those folks who think the 1st paragraph of the 14th Amendment only applies to slaves. It is clear that �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.� This is a serious problem for those persons who are born of illegal aliens. The child (person) born here is a citizen but the parent(s) are not. So deport the parents and what about the child. So educate and care for the child with all the costs but get rid of the parents�maybe get the child foster care. A tough dilemma and something a Constitutional Amendment could fix. It would need to be prospective and carefully worded to avoid those problems of allowing politicians to play with who is and who is not a citizen. Maybe something like �A person born of a person legally in the United States is a Citizen.� Even then you might have to contend with travelers coming here legally but that could be fixed by a Federal statute that states it is a crime to come to the US for the purpose of having a child. In other words those folks would not be here legally. That would be something a little less specific. With the press of resources and the hardship involved with this issue, I commend my Senator for his courage to do something. And he will be my Senator well past 2014. Thanks Lindsey!
PS Those who do not think this applies to the Mexicans better look at the 2d amendment. That is not anywhere near as specific�it basically includes the right to bear arms as part of a �well regulated� militia. Lots of room for argument on that