home

Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendment

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 05:36:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The 14th Amendment says:

"all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo now wants Congress to pass a bill denying citizenship to children of undocumented residents. He and like-minded Republicans want to tack the ban on to an immigration bill scheduled to be considered by the House next week.

Apparently, Tancredo believes that the Amendment doesn't apply to children with undocumented parents because although they are born in the U.S., they are not subject to its jurisdictions. Complete nonsense.

Democratic Congressman Charlie Gonzales has this appropriate response:

To change the way we establish citizenship is such an extreme measure, and it makes you really question what is motivating people to come up with those ideas.

< Gov. Schwarzenegger: Spare Tookie's Life | Former Detainee Reiterates Torture Claim >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendment | 45 comments (45 topical)
    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    I have problems with Tancredo's approach, as it could create a permanent non-citizen class (we don't need the problem Germany has). However - could you stop using the stupid word "undocumented"? Illegal Alien is far more descriptive. "Undocumented" makes it sound like they lost their passports, and you know full well that's not the case.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#2)
    by Lww on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    So if my mother or father had been a stowaway I'd be kicked out of this great land? Sounds bad. These people on the border are desperate so I bet this is a show to get some FED money down there. They can't be serious.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    I don't doubt Tancredo is serious, however, he is not to be taken seriously. You don't leave the womb with documents. That would be taking the police state a bit to far.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    LWW writes:
    These people on the border are desperate so I bet this is a show to get some FED money down there.
    Uh, better check your map. Tancredo's district is basically south Denver to Pueblo... That is a long way from the border.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    bear in mind, mr. tancredo didn't get to congress by writing an essay, he was elected. presumptively, he represents the views of at least those of his constituents who voted for him. that he felt confident enough to propose this says as much about the people he represents, as it does about him.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    That's a bogus assumption cp. When was the last election you voted in that had a candidate that truly represented your views? The people in Tancredo's district voted for the lesser of two evils, like everybody else. I'd say the people in his district made a mistake in that regard, but I wouldn't assume his views mirror the majority in his district.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    I'm so proud of my fellow moron-Americans in CO who elected this moron-American to the most corrupt congress in history. He fits perfect, and the number of dumass redneks in CO is validated by his election.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    So what's he suggesting-- retroactiving removing people's citizenship? Or grandfathering people out? He must want to eliminate more Democrats from the electorate.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    tired_democrat - No, he isn't suggesting grandfathering people out. Why don't you read what he proposes rather than just make a snarky remark? Tancredo proposes a change that actually makes sense. He is saying that the result of an illegal action should not be legal. Read the link:
    They call the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants "anchor babies" because at age 18 the children can apply to bring other family members here from abroad. It cheapens the whole concept of citizenship," said Tancredo, R-Littleton. "People are coming here simply for the purpose of having a child here and then, because they're the anchor, they can have all the family come in on that child's ticket. ... There are thousands upon thousands of people who are doing it," he said. He cited "surprising" momentum behind the plan. A House bill to make the policy change has 77 co-sponsors.
    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    While extreme the congressman is only expressing the view of "many" that immigration, specifically with Mexico and Central America is out of hand. If I was Mexican and poor I'd come here too but that doesn't mean we should just open up the floodgates and not pass laws that punish those who abuse the system. The wall is the most resoanable solution I can think of.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    What has a newborn baby born on US soil done that is illegal? Or is he proposing that the child suffer for the crimes of the parent? I still say he's nuts. I know Congress is under a lot of pressure to do something about immigration, but denying children born in the US their citizenship is not the way to go.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    A little historical perspective on this item might be fun: The language that Tancredo wants to eviscerate was drafted to lead off the 14th Amendment, following the Civil War, for the purpose of overriding the notorious Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v Sanford. The Dred Scott case, of course, held that a person whose ancestors came to this country from Africa (i.e., descendants of slaves) could not, by definition, be, and have the equal rights of, citizens -- by virtue of their parents' (non)"legal" status. This language also, for the first time, enshrined in our Constitution the concept of a "citizen of the United States"; before that, it was arguable that the only American citizenship was state citizenship, with the states then obligated to treat each other's citizens even-handedly. In other words, Tancredo would tamper with one of the core anti-inequality rules of our Constitution. By the way, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to the principles of international law governing the status of foreign diplomats and their families.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    Pete..Thanks for the legal reasons why Tancredo is nuts.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    kdog - He isn't harming the child, just saying that it is a citizen of the country of its parents. And the parents illegal actions do not grant the child citizenship. Peter G - I see nothing that couldn't be fixed in the new law.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    Yeah, thanks Pete. Except, the author of the clause never intended it to apply to foreigners. TL is also wrong: Tancredo doesn't want to repeal the 14th amendment. All those who don't want to make this change should immediately underwrite all those who come here illegally specifically to have a U.S. citizen child. And, not all of those are Mexicans: there are even Korean services that fly people here specifically to abuse our system. Also, this reveals just how much "liberals" support the plight that illegal aliens will always be in. If there are no anchor babies, there will be fewer mixed-status families. Everyone in the family will be citizens of one country. That will avoid a lot of problems. And, by making this change, fewer illegal aliens will come here to abuse our system. That's better for them and for us. And, "liberals" might want to do a bit of introspection: why are you supporting foreigners who want to come here to abuse our system?

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    You are a citizen of the country you are born in. Is this not common sense?

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#17)
    by eric on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    TL is also wrong: Tancredo doesn't want to repeal the 14th amendment. Well, there is no question that his bill would directly conflict with the plain language of the 14th Amendment. The text is clear: "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." It's simple and unambigous - Born in the U.S. = Citizen. If Mr. Tancredo wants to exclude certain children born here from citizenship, it seems to me that the 14th Amendment does have to be changed. This bill simply cannot be reconciled with the text of the Constitution.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    Yeeesss, there is a whole network of aircraft specifically chartered to bring aliens to the US to have babies. That's it, that's the ticket.[/Lovitz] Fortunately it is offset by all those secret cia flights that kidnap people to gulags. Anyone else notice that a law can't trump an amendment?

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#19)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    Wow... This one blows my mind! So the wrong wingers are convinced that immigrants are coming here to have "anchor" children, obviously on some devious 18 year plan to inundate the cities with brown people! Jim, I expect better from you. Not BMB of course, but you. I think wrong wingers really need to do a little introspection themselves and decide if the slow but persistant rape of the constitution is what they want as their legacy. Everyone of you is descended from immigrants, a lot of them "illegals"... But I guess you got yours, to hell with the others, right? An accident of birth brought you here.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    Being that you're a constitutional scholar and all, "BigMediaBlog," I assume you have some basis for saying that "the author of the [14th Amendment citizenship] clause never intended it to apply to foreigners." (I love that boldface; thanks for suggesting we use it to show how sure we are that we're right!) (Let's just put aside the question of whether it even matters what "the author" (who was that, by the way?) of the Amendment "intended." The amendment, as written, was adopted because it was approved by the required majority in Congress and then by the required number of state legislatures. A person might think the question was what they "intended." Anyway, the authors of the 14th Amenment didn't intend its "equal protection" clause to apply to women, but it does (to offer but one of about a million counter-examples to your point).) Anyway, your suggestion is ridiculous. In 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, lots of people were being born in America to parents who were born elsewhere (I guess that's what you mean by "apply[ing] to foreigners"), and immigration was entirely unregulated by law. So I'm pretty sure you are just totally wrong -- but maybe you can show me otherwise.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#21)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    I have to agree with BigMediaBlog on one minor point:
    TL is also wrong: Tancredo doesn't want to repeal the 14th amendment.
    TL was being too generous. The headline should properly read "Tancredo says children of undocumented residents are not people". Tancredo fails to understand either basic English or 7th Grade Civics lessons. I think there are questions about this on the Citizenship exam we give legal immigrants; if Tancredo fails, can we deport his children?

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    I have to admit the anchor babies meme sounds bit farfetched. But maybe others have more specific information than me. Johnny, um, we're all immigrants here, are we not? My ancestors immigrated from Europe, for example, and yours from Asia albeit many, many centuries before mine... I also doubt whether a lot of "our" ancestors were "illegals." For the record, I think this proposal is ludicrous on a bunch of levels.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    roy - No. Tancredo understands and is merely trying to change a law. That is how our system works. Peter G - So the proposed law doesn't pass the 14th? I mean when we did that one, all we had was 13. We have had more since... So, what's wrong with another one? I mean, living document and all that stuff. Johnny - Catch a clue. If the constitution is changed, that is hardly rape.
    But I guess you got yours, to hell with the others, right?
    Kinda works like that. Otherwise you'll have 4 billion plus showing up at your front door. BTW - You being a good Leftie and all, you should be very concerned with the downward pressure that an endless supply of workers places on wages and benefits. Especially those at the lower end of the economic scale.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    Sorry, PPJ, back to civics class. Tancredo isn't proposing a Constitutional amendment; he's proposing a statute, to be enacted by Congress. No statute can validly contradict a provision of the Constitution. BTW, the notion of a "living Constitution" has to do with the proper interpretation of vaguely worded existing provisions, not with the amendment process.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    Peter G - I agree with your view of Tancredo's proposal, but submit that if pursued it would lead to an attempt to amend the constitution. As for "living," well... maybe I've been watching too much CNN. So I must disagree. If you couldn't amend it, it couldn't be "living." et al - When I lived in CO I met Tom Tancredo on several occasions, and note that he doesn't have horns, and is willing to address problems as he sees them. If you doubt me, check how many times he has been invited to the WH in the past 5 years.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    Dear lurker: Many of those commenting here are far-left and are unable to do research or understand the results of their policies. While the far-left is OK at some things, the last thing we want to do is turn policy decisions over to them. We might as well put children in charge of our national defense. As for the complaints about my previous comment: Here's a Los Angeles Times story: Korean moms want 'born in USA' babies. Why, one of the companies apparently offering flights even has a website: birthinusa.com. You'll need to read Korean however. And, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, author of that part of the 14th Amendment, said the phrase relating to jurisdiction meant, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners...." Some members of the far-left are good at drawing and things like that, but when it comes to thinking leave that to others.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#27)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    Johnny, um, we're all immigrants here, are we not? My ancestors immigrated from Europe, for example, and yours from Asia albeit many, many centuries before mine...
    The difference, of course being, that when mine cme they did not advocate and participate in a planned genocide using biological warfare.
    Johnny - Catch a clue. If the constitution is changed, that is hardly rape.
    Throw me a clue, Jim. Thts all anyone who has ever been accused of not having a clue asks of you. I am asking you if the steady rape of the constitution s what you want your legacy to be? Your civil rights are being taken from you one-by-one... Are you comfortable with that? Cuz you deserve the country you get if you are.
    Kinda works like that. Otherwise you'll have 4 billion plus showing up at your front door. BTW - You being a good Leftie and all, you should be very concerned with the downward pressure that an endless supply of workers places on wages and benefits. Especially those at the lower end of the economic scale.
    Well, maybe it is high time you understand what it is like to have your culture destroyed by unwanted guests. Hypocrite. Tell me Jim, when you lost your job as head strawberry picker to some illegal, did you miss the 5 dollars an hour?

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#28)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    Some members of the far-left are good at drawing and things like that, but when it comes to thinking leave that to others.
    Like you? other than a blog which no-one ever comments on, what have you got to offer in solution? All you have ever done is complain about TL and promote your little site.... Oh, and say "libruls dumb"... Come on, at least Jim makes the attempt at sounding like he can come up with his own ideas.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:51 PM EST
    Johnny – You are no more Native American than anyone else who was born here. Educate yourself. Read some books. I recommend “The Contested Plains” which details how various tribes flowed across the land, each pushing out the previous “owners.” And the warfare was bloody. The influx of Europeans was just such a movement. And when we stop defending our borders and culture we will join those who lost, just as the NAs lost. Note: I did not say USA citizen. And which, pray tell, civil rights have we lost? The past 50 years has seen nothing but an expansion of “rights.” Again. What Tancredo is doing is trying to pass a law that, if passed, would wind up in front of the SC, and, if declared unconstitutional could wind up as a proposed amendment. That’s the way we do it. Awkward, yes. But a lot better than what it replaced. You speak of “unwanted guests?” My known ethnic history is Scot Irish. So spare me your tears. Been there and done that, don’t you know!? Of course the real comment is:
    So? Who cares? No one around today was involved. And that includes Johnny and Jim.
    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#30)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:51 PM EST
    Johnny – You are no more Native American than anyone else who was born here. Educate yourself. Read some books. I recommend “The Contested Plains” which details how various tribes flowed across the land, each pushing out the previous “owners.” And the warfare was bloody. The influx of Europeans was just such a movement. And when we stop defending our borders and culture we will join those who lost, just as the NAs lost.
    I really don't understand this point and in fact believe it is wrong, or at least the implications it makes are wrong. The destruction of the Indian culture was due to the the European's/white man's slaughter of the Indians in the name of economic development for the whites of course. The movemnet of Indian tribes which did result in intertribal battles was forced by the movement of whites west. BTW the slaughter of Indians included groups such as those led by Black Kettle who had pledged loyalty to the US and thought he was safe camped near a fort. Such killings included women and children, scalping of men women and children as well as genital mutilation. And you wonder why so many don't see a problem with torture. The development of the US utilized this against the savages of the West just as it is ok to use it against the savages of the Mideast. Bury my Heart at wounded knee should be required reading in every HS american history class.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#31)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:51 PM EST
    Jim, you are ignorant of native culture. Until you read an anthropology book or ten, put a cork in it. Until you can show me where some brown fruit picker destroyed your local economy, I shall decide to believe you are ignorant of that as well. Good luck.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#32)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:51 PM EST
    I forgot a question: exactly what culture are we talking about? The Euro-Christian culture? Or do we include black culture, Asian culture, etc. Exactly how much purity are you looking for?

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:51 PM EST
    Johnny, Johnny, Johnny. I used to live in Tucson in Pima County, AZ. Pray tell, what happened to the Pima people? Your ancestors, in the Americas and previously in Asia, killed whomever and whatever they felt they needed to, just as mine did. You are human, you belong to the human race, your ancestors were just as rapacious and as benevolent as anyone/everyone else's. Not that I think you'll ever accept that fact. fwiw, here's another book for you, "The Boy Captive of Deerfield," you can get it through inter-library loan, I'm sure.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:51 PM EST
    SD – I wrote.
    I recommend “The Contested Plains” which details how various tribes flowed across the land, each pushing out the previous “owners.” And the warfare was bloody. The influx of Europeans was just such a movement. And when we stop defending our borders and culture we will join those who lost, just as the NAs lost.
    I thought my point simple. Johnny’s ancestors weren’t first and mostly likely neither were the people his ancestors displaced. Inter-tribal warfare was common place and quite horrible. And as I pointed out, having bad things happen to your ancestors is not unique, and qualifies you for exactly nothing. So please, spare me the hand wringing. I did none of it, and neither did anyone else alive. BTW – I wrote “our culture.” Now since we are the USA, I would think the use of the inclusive “our” should allow most of us to understand. Now if I had wanted to specify a sub-culture, such as Black, Hispanic, Appalachian, Cajun, West Texas, etc. I would have done so. Johnny writes:
    Jim, you are ignorant of native culture. Until you read an anthropology book or ten, put a cork in it.
    Snappy comeback. Real informative. Displays a great deal of knowledge on your part. So, tell me how something that was done by my great great grandfather to your great great grandfather has anything to do with anything. What you are doing is playing the role of the “victim.” Your problem is that many people in this country are now looking around and saying: Okay. Sorry about that. Now how about getting on with your life and quit complaining about something I had nothing to do with. And if you do not understand that an influx of people who will work for less money than what the existing work force is getting will depress wages then your knowledge base of supply and demand is extremely limited. What’s the matter? Want your lawn mowed at the cheapest possible price? One other small point. When a family with three kids move into a school district, you get an instant cost of about $5,000 per kid or $15,000 plus infrastructure for schools. To this you can add all of the rest of the services required. Now normal growth can absorb this. But when millions start to do it, someone has to pay the difference. And it isn’t that strawberry picker you refer to. So not only do you hurt citizen low income workers, you zap the rest with taxes to pay for the illegals.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#35)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:51 PM EST
    I wrote “our culture.” Now since we are the USA, I would think the use of the inclusive “our” should allow most of us to understand. Now if I had wanted to specify a sub-culture, such as Black, Hispanic, Appalachian, Cajun, West Texas, etc. I would have done so.
    if this is true why the hand wringing about a few more posing a threat to our culture.

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#36)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:51 PM EST
    It is interesting to see the wrong wingers such as PPJ show so much concern about the effect of illegal immigration on our economy but have no problem with the policies of our government which worsen our economy

    Re: Tom Tancredo's Latest : Repeal the 14th Amendm (none / 0) (#37)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:51 PM EST