Constitution, shmonstitution….
The 14th Amendment is quite clear: Anybody born in the United States is a citizen. You can argue about its wisdom or unintended consequences, but you cannot seriously argue about its language:
““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.”
There is no equivocation, no qualification. Under that provision, even children born in this country to illegal immigrants become U.S. citizens, period. If that bothers you, if you want to change that reality, you have to change the Constitution, which contains provisions by which it can be amended.
However, U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal proposes to alter the Constitution with a simple law, in effect pretending the Constitution doesn’t exist. As the Associated Press puts it:
“Under Deal’s proposal, babies born in the U.S. would automatically have citizenship only if at least one of their parents is a U.S. citizen or national, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., or actively serving in the U.S. military.”
The fact that Deal’s solution would clearly be unconstitutional doesn’t faze him. To the contrary, he suggests that the main obstacle to his proposal is political:
“I think the current makeup of the Congress is such that this will never get a hearing and will never be an issue that we get a chance to vote on. But I think it’s important to keep the issues that are part of the immigration problem alive.”
Translation from politispeak: “I’m running for governor in a crowded Republican field, and to draw attention to myself and appeal to conservative voters, I’m more than willing to propose legislation that violates the U.S. Constitution.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
117 comments Add your comment
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 26th, 2009
8:02 am
I don’t remember seeing the right to kill unborn babies in the US Constitution but that didn’t keep you libs from “finding” it.
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 26th, 2009
8:07 am
As a matter of fact, the Constitution expressly prohibits abortion-
nor shall any State deprive ANY Person of Life
If you libs want to play word games with the law, why can’t Deal?
Redneck Convert
May 26th, 2009
8:09 am
Well, I don’t know why anybody would want a Mexican or Chinaman as a citizen when you got plenty of good rednecks around. We might not speak English as good as them, but we make ourselfs understood. You might could have to pay a little more to get us to work for you, but leastwise you know you’re hiring a red-blooded American. Besides, the other people work too hard and make the rest of us look bad. It’s true that once in a while one of us goes a little haywire and kills or rapes a few people or gets arrested for dope or DUI, but you can’t be perfect. Best of all, we vote Republican and help keep America for Americans. The illegals and their brood always vote librul Democrat.
Anyhow, the minute we catch a illegal having a baby we need to haul them both across the border and dump them. They breed like rabbits and pretty soon we’ll be out-voted and paying all kinds of extra taxes for these Welfare programs to support them if we don’t change things right now. Up till now I’ve been in favor of Ray McBerry on account of him saying the income tax is illegal, but I might could vote for this Nathan Deal if he don’t get weak and fold on us.
So I say we need to kick up all kind of sand about this anchor baby business and make it so we can kick all the illegals out even if their baby is born in the U.S. of A.
Have a good day everybody.
TW
May 26th, 2009
8:14 am
Babies? Sombody’s killing babies?
Call the cops!
BDAtlanta
May 26th, 2009
8:16 am
Republicans already solved the illegal immigrant issues/problems/concerns by saddling us with this economy: the illegal aliens are leaving in droves and going home.
Joey
May 26th, 2009
8:20 am
What is the big deal. Deal is dealing with election retoric in the same way all other politician deal with campaigning. It is likely that Republicans will deal Deal out.
But how does Jay deal with Democrats when they offer some off the wall deal to voters? Jay will, as usual, deal with Democrats campaign deals as though they are the real deal.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 26th, 2009
8:21 am
But Jay, Rep. Deal knows what the authors of the 14th amendment really thought deep-down:
From the article: “Deal and his supporters say the 14th Amendment wording was never meant to automatically give citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.”
See? since it was never intended to mean what everyone thinks it means, we get a do-over.
zip
May 26th, 2009
8:21 am
How ’bout we just enforce the laws that we already have?
Taxpayer
May 26th, 2009
8:22 am
Nathan Deal blends right in with the rest of the 20 percenters. I think he’s doing a great job of getting this part of the 20 percenter’s message out — trample the Constitution if that’s what it takes to get your way. These 20 percenters sure are amusing to watch. They sure do whine a lot though.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 26th, 2009
8:24 am
Let’s see what the CA Supreme’s say about trying to change their state constitution via Prop 8 today…..
Nathan Deal is Andy in a bad suit.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 26th, 2009
8:26 am
Andy, can you find the part in the Constitution that confers American citizenship upon an embryo? Thanks!
(Until he does, I’m going to go on assuming that bit about being “secure in their persons” in the Fourth Amendment extends to forcing women to be incubators.)
getalife
May 26th, 2009
8:26 am
Is he the one running for guv that has sex with farm animals?
DB, Gwinnettian
May 26th, 2009
8:28 am
Let’s see what the CA Supreme’s say
ugh. Let’s not and say we did.
Curious Observer
May 26th, 2009
8:29 am
Obama’s Supreme Court pick is to be announced at 10:15 this morning. Get your earplugs. You’re going to be hearing some howling the rest of the day.
Taxpayer
May 26th, 2009
8:30 am
Is he the one running for guv that has sex with farm animals?
Maybe that’s how they Deal with that abstinence thing.
RB from Gwinnett
May 26th, 2009
8:31 am
zip has the right answer. If we would just enforce the laws we already have, this problem would cease. But neither party will do anything because they both want the illegals vote.
And then there is that pesky 2nd ammendment, Jay. The wording in that one seems quite clear as well, but that hasn’t stopped your bretheren from passing a multitude of gun bans and restrictions; all of which only apply to law abiding citizens.
What would be wrong with delivering illegal moms baby at the hospital and then deporting her because she should not be here in the first place?
DB, Gwinnettian
May 26th, 2009
8:31 am
Is he the one running for guv that has sex with farm animals?
You’re thinking of Neal Horsley.
And it’s “had sex,” not “has sex.” Far as we know, he doesn’t do that any more.
TW
May 26th, 2009
8:32 am
zip – that would cost money. Ask that group of rightwing nazi’s who run around with guns lookin’ for illegals if they’d be willing to raise taxes to enforce the laws we now have.
This is just Deal playing the pretend card. Works well with his meth head white trash base.
ty webb
May 26th, 2009
8:37 am
Can we get a politispeak translation for “Hope and Change”?
Bosch
May 26th, 2009
8:37 am
And, of course, if the illegal immigrants are the beautiful Swedish couple who live next door that have a couple of blonde -headed blue eyed beauties – well, who cares. They work hard and are a nice family.
Bosch
May 26th, 2009
8:38 am
Sotomayer, good – she looks like she’d have fun whacking Scalia upside the head with her law book.
jt
May 26th, 2009
8:39 am
The constitution is just a pesky little speed bump to the carreer politicians of the R & D party.
It is quite amusing to see the right or left defend this sacred document.
Cherry Pickers All.
Northern Songs Ltd
May 26th, 2009
8:41 am
Whiner @ 8:07: As a matter of fact, the Constitution expressly prohibits abortion-nor shall any State deprive ANY Person of Life
The I guess the Death Penalty is unconstituional also??
jt
May 26th, 2009
8:42 am
No change here.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/26/obama-vow-to-delay-signing-is-subject-to-interpret/
Jay roolz Andy and RB
May 26th, 2009
8:42 am
Let the Uber whining commence… I wonder if she likes to watch “Long Dong Silver”… Hopefully she’ll NEVER ask a question in oral arguments either, like the last “conservative” minority appointed to the SCOTUS…
ewwwwwwww
AmVet
May 26th, 2009
8:43 am
Nathan Deal? What a joke.
Except here in the Moron Belt where he is a serious candidate to replace “Pray for Rain” Sonny.
This Arlen Specter for the Republicans (OK, so they dozens of them) would have at least three more amendments to the US Constitution. As well as ignoring a handful of others.
These creeps just don’t want to keep their filthy hands off of that sacred document. In any form possible…
BDAtlanta
May 26th, 2009
8:44 am
Bosch at 8:37 hits the nail on the head.
danjonglee
May 26th, 2009
8:45 am
I wish we had the same passion for the 1st and 2nd amendments…
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 26th, 2009
8:48 am
The I guess the Death Penalty is unconstituional also??
Read the Constitution, stunt dummy-
without due process of law.
Copyleft
May 26th, 2009
8:48 am
Proposed legislation that’s never intended to go anywhere is S.O.P. for members of Congress. It’s a publicity stunt to get attention, as Jay notes, in a crowded field of candidates.
If this were a seriously proposed bill there would be reason for concern, since it obviously violates the Constitution. But I’m sure even Deal himself doesn’t take this seriously–he just wants some attention from the bigots that make up his constituency.
Normal
May 26th, 2009
8:49 am
Whine,
1. Tell the readers where you got that “Quote” and why you took it out
of context.
2. Are you trying to say you are pro life? That is one thing I refuse to believe from reading your “comments”. You are too full of
hate to to be anything near pro life. I really don’t believe you
understand the term.
To be pro life, you have to assume a responsibility for the life you
are trying to save, so that it won’t be an unwanted child from an
uncaring family and given no chance to succeed and become a burden on
society, or on the prison system. In other words, you will need to
ensure that that life is well cared for, loved, educated and given every
chance to succeed as if it were your child. That means foster homes,
health care, educational programs and all of the other stuff you call
socialistic. If you are not willing to take on that responsibility,
or let your government do it for you, then you are not pro life, you
are just pro fetus. Just another rationalization to trick yourself
into thinking you are a moral stalwart.
And one other thing, you seem to prefer violence to rational, open
talks with our enemies, so you can’t be pro life. War is definitely
not pro life.
This is why I know what I’m talking about.
Thirteen years ago, I prevented my teenage daughter from getting an
abortion, against her and her mothers wishes. Did it for all the
“right” reasons too. My daughter moved away and I lost contact with
them, I knew where they were but it was just too hard to get there. Sure, I sent money every birthday, but I didn’t write or make contact
in other than the most occasonal and very brief phone calls. I said all
the right things, but I never backed them up with actions. I knew there
was trouble in the family but did nothing. I should have taken
responsibility for the boy, because it was me who wanted to save him.
When I knew he was unloved, uncared for, I should have brought him
home. But no, I did my part, I saved his life. And for what? He is
now 13 years old and will be tried as an adult for a felony. Where
is the warm fuzzy in that, my friend? What was the point?
I know you are smart, so act it.
BDAtlanta
May 26th, 2009
8:51 am
Deal understands that what he is saying plays well to voters before elections. Once elected, he’ll never again utter a word about such proposals or anything about immigration reform.
It’s not Republican or Democrat, it’s simply a fact of economics – whether it’s the economics of running a household or the economics of running a business – that cheap labor will win the day.
You can bet that more than a few of Deal’s financial backers are relying on immigrants – legal or otherwise – to clean their houses, watch their kids or work in their businesses.
S GA dem
May 26th, 2009
8:52 am
Just another example of a “conservative” being anything but. How did this crazy group of people hijack the word ‘conservative’?? Radical, that’s way more accurate.
BDAtlanta
May 26th, 2009
8:54 am
Normal,
that may be too much logic for your intended target to comprehend. If the preacher or Rush don’t tell them what to think, it isn’t going to get thought.
Bosch
May 26th, 2009
8:54 am
Wow.
“To be pro life, you have to assume a responsibility for the life you
are trying to save, so that it won’t be an unwanted child from an
uncaring family and given no chance to succeed and become a burden on
society, or on the prison system. In other words, you will need to
ensure that that life is well cared for, loved, educated and given every
chance to succeed as if it were your child. That means foster homes,
health care, educational programs and all of the other stuff you call
socialistic. If you are not willing to take on that responsibility,
or let your government do it for you, then you are not pro life, you
are just pro fetus. Just another rationalization to trick yourself
into thinking you are a moral stalwart”
I’m going to copy and paste that into a Word Document and read it everytime I hear someone yelling about “murderin’ babies.”
Thanks for sharing that Normal.
jt
May 26th, 2009
8:55 am
danjonglee
May 26th, 2009
8:45 am
I wish we had the same passion for the 1st and 2nd amendments…
WE do. That is why there is a growing independant movement. The R & D party is NOT growing.
If only we can get a few EX POST FACTO convictions.
George American
May 26th, 2009
8:59 am
Deal has a great idea!
Keep America for Americans. What part of “illegal alien” don’t you understand?
Bosch
May 26th, 2009
9:00 am
George American,
“Keep America for Americans”
The only way any of us can say that is if you are 100% Native American. Are you?
Mrs. Godzilla
May 26th, 2009
9:00 am
Sonia Sotomayor…..at 10:15
Mrs. Godzilla
May 26th, 2009
9:02 am
Bosch
One of the brighter righties here pointed out to me that even “native”
Americans came over from Asia across the ancient land bridge…..
George American
May 26th, 2009
9:06 am
I am 100% American by any measure of American.
Shawny
May 26th, 2009
9:08 am
If we would enforce the immigration LAWS, then there would be no hub-bub. But we allow a free flow of traffic across the borders including van loads of illegals. Enforce all laws.
Northern Songs Ltd
May 26th, 2009
9:09 am
Andy: Last I checked, the Supreme Court was the final piece of the “due process of law” puzzle, and I believe they have spoken. Oh and read “Normal’s” post again — awesome!!
Doggone/GA
May 26th, 2009
9:11 am
“Andy: Last I checked, the Supreme Court was the final piece of the “due process of law” puzzle, and I believe they have spoken.”
Cue “activist judges” rant
ty webb
May 26th, 2009
9:11 am
Sorry to sound heartless, but I believe Normal’s post was ridiculous. So If someone is against aborting an innocent life, they should be held responsible for all the subsequent poor choices that life, His/her mother, or his/her grandmother makes. Sorry, but I don’t buy it. While it’s a tragic story, the “Pro life” crowd is not responsible for the many bad choices of the child, and his family. And this is coming from someone who is not “anti abortion”.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 26th, 2009
9:19 am
Jay, are illegals “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? There might be something there to get rid of all these so called anchor child citizens!
Red
May 26th, 2009
9:20 am
Why is Reich wing populism always so filled with hate and exclusion? Of course it will never get traction, but this is how a GOP gubernatorial candidate gets noticed?
Mrs. Godzilla
May 26th, 2009
9:24 am
Is it ok to terminate the pregnancy when it is an “anchor” blastocyst?
Mort Merkel
May 26th, 2009
9:25 am
Wow, you saw through Deal’s smokescreen? The sad part is that there are so many who don’t, or willfully won’t.
Adittohead
May 26th, 2009
9:28 am
The main goal of Obama appointing a far-left Supreme Court judge is to reWrite the U.S. Constitution to satisfy the kooks on the Left…To the liberals, the Constitution is a living document. It means what they say it means.