Even Lou Dobbs believes in the 14th amendment

Josh Marshall calls Mitch McConnell’s support of hearings into whether the U.S. Constitution grants citizenship to persons born in the United States “another sign of the darkening political horizon in the country.”

Evidence that he’s absolutely right comes from an unlikely source: Lou Dobbs.

. . . The idea that anchor babies somehow require changing the 14th amendment, I part ways with the Senators on that because I believe the 14th amendment, particularly in its due process and equal protection clauses, is so important. It lays the foundation for the entire Bill of Rights being applied to the states.

Even Lou Dobbs–as anti-immigrant as he is, witness his use of “anchor babies”–doesn’t want to amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship. That’s how far off the deep end McConnell, Kyl, and Graham (that so-called moderate) are willing to go to mollify the most extremes of their base.

The intent of the amendment was not so people could come in the states and have anchor babies. The intent of the amendment was to protect the rights of recently-freed blacks after the civil war. I find it extremely suspicious when liberals suddenly develop a passion for a particular amendment, when they do their best to make swiss cheese out of the Constitution the rest of the time.

For all their pandering to the ultra-rightwing, McConnell, Kyl, and Graham know that they won’t get the 14th Amendment replaced or modified - even by a Republican Congress.

I am a libertarian. I find it extremely suspicious when so-called conservatives suddenly develop a passion for a particular amendment, when they do their best to make swiss cheese out of the Constitution the rest of the time.

*"Even Lou Dobbs–as anti-immigrant as he is, witness his use of “anchor babies”–doesn’t want to amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship. That’s how far off the deep end McConnell, Kyl, and Graham (that so-called moderate) are willing to go to mollify the most extremes of their base. " *

Lou Dobbs is anti-immigrant?

Politically, this is a loser subject for Republicans to address for the next few elections cycles.

Practically, its not right for foreign nationals to get admission to the US based upon having a child in the US. I had a conversation with a pregnant Mexican national, who is a professional with a good job working and living in Tiajuana. Her husband is also a Mexican national. She was telling me how she was planning to go to San Diego when she was beginning her labor so that her child would be a US citizen. Whether legally entering or illegally entering, does it not seem a little unfair to all the people who would like to be US citizens but have to wait and are not lucky enough to live in the country that borders the US?

You know when you see “anti-immigrant” there is a liberal around.

Amazing how wanting people to follow the rule of law is some how “anti-immigrant”. But you know the old liberal rule…when you are on the losing end of a debate, toss out an ad hominem attack to shut up your opponent. Last week it was “racist”, this week its “anti-immigrant”. Hmmm…I guess next week will be “homophobic”?

Let’s look at the text:

*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.
*

Seems we forget the middle part of that sentence. Quite a few people should reread some of the discussions and debates on the 14th amendment. Anchor babies are contrary to the intent and text of the amendment.

When a liberal tells you that the 2nd amendment was intended only to allow for well trained militias to exist (because that’s what is says in the amendment itself), how do you respond?

I tell them to research what the term militia meant. The militia was all able-bodied free men. It is a poor student of history who doesn’t even know what the term Minutemen meant.

Really now? So you believe the phrase “well regulated Militia” refers to every able bodied man? Where does the “well regulated” part come into play?

Really now? So you believe the phrase “well regulated Militia” refers to every able bodied man? Where does the “well regulated” part come into play?

I support the right to bear arms- but when you let yourself get into “Well, what was the intent here” you’re one step away from “well, I’d prefer that it said this rather than this so I’ll just pretend that’s what is says”

guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Rather than reading that lengthy page I can infer that it is making an argument supporting a view point. And from that I can assume that you know that everyone agrees with said argument, or said view point- indeed there are many people who have a view point diametrically opposed to that one- in that they would see what we know as gun rights reduced a great deal should they be in power (like they are now)… IF we establish a precedent by trying to change the meaning of what is written on the page by saying “well, I think they meant this…”

The second amendment clearly says that the right to bear arms is not to be screwed with.

The fourteenth clearly says that everyone born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen.

No one has doubted that such children are citizens until some GOP politicians decided to latch onto this to pander to the ultra-right wingers. I have no doubt that the law won’t be changed nor an new Amendment passed. There are too many level headed Congressmen, even among the Republicans, for that to happen.

Interpretation goes back to which camp you are in. Are you an originalist? Which would mean that in order to understand the 2nd amendment you have to understand the terminology of the time, and the intent of the law at the time. Likewise, understanding the 14th amendment is based upon the intent of the law at the time.

Or you could be a person who believes the Constitution is a living, breathing document subject to interpretation by the current folks on the supreme court…which is actually a way of saying the wording of the Constitution is relatively meaningless if the interpretation can be changed over time.

So regarding the 14th amendment (again the Republicans should drop this issue), do you think the law was intended to give foreign nationals an easier path to citizenship? Is that fair for people who would like to immigrate but live overseas?

Blog post referencing other blog posts and an edited video. This is not a news story and doesn’t link to a news story.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.