August 16, 2010 |
Just when you thought the Republican far-right had enough enemies to keep itself busy — gays, socialists, Muslims, Arabs, illegal immigrants — it launched a new war against babies "dropped" (in the loving words of South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham) by illegal immigrant mothers. These politicians want to change the 14th Amendment so that those U.S.-born children would be excluded from "birthright citizenship. " Their main contention is that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not have the children of illegal immigrants in mind when they explicitly stated 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.
August 10, 2010 |
It's like clockwork. Whenever conservatives propose a constitutional amendment, progressives suddenly rediscover the delicate gears of the constitution and the horrible dangers of "tinkering" or "tampering" with its precision craftsmanship. Consider the sudden brouhaha over the idea of revising the 14th Amendment to get rid of automatic birthright citizenship (which would make us more like Europe, by the way). Here's Angela Kelley of the liberal Center for American Progress on Sen. Lindsey Graham, who started the amendment chatter: "He's not one to tamper with the Constitution, so I'm surprised he would even suggest this.
March 10, 2007 |
GENERATIONS OF Americans have understood that children born in the United States are entitled to U.S. citizenship, regardless of the nationality of their parents. When Congress revisits immigration reform this spring, however, legislation to repeal this historic rule is expected to play a central role in the debate. Many Americans are angry about illegal immigration and believe birthright citizenship encourages it.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
January 29, 1992
Once again, The Times' editors have chosen to be selective with the facts concerning my proposals to reform our immigration policies. The problem is not immigrants--the problem is illegal immigrants, a crucial point that your editorial writer chose to ignore almost altogether. I support generous legal immigration, believing that newcomers to our society can make a tremendous contribution. But I also believe that the United States has a right to determine how many immigrants we can accept every year, and clearly we have lost control over our borders.
August 21, 2012
Re "No 14th Amendment asterisk," Editorial, Aug. 17 Leave it to the Times to understand the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" citizenship clause as meaning anything other than that at least one of the parents must be a citizen of, or at least legally residing in, the United States. In United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court decision in 1898 you refer to, Wong was the son of Chinese immigrants legally living in this country at the time of his birth, not of illegal immigrants.
September 13, 2010 |
Immigration issues, including questions about who should have U.S. citizenship, have hurt President Obama's standing with voters, according to the latest Quinnipiac University national poll. The poll, carried out during the first week in September, found that respondents had a strong anti-immigrant tilt, favoring, by 68% to 24%, stricter enforcement of immigration laws rather than integrating illegal immigrants into society and, by 48% to 45%, an end to the constitutionally guaranteed practice of granting U.S. citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants.
January 13, 2011
Legislators from five states have unveiled model legislation with complicated provisions but a simple and pernicious premise: that children born in this country aren't citizens if their parents are illegal immigrants. That assertion, however, is no match for more than 100 years of Supreme Court precedent holding that anyone born in the United States is an American citizen. If the states enact laws disregarding that principle, the court should resoundingly reaffirm its interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
July 4, 1997 |
Despite recent safeguards that have slowed the process, U.S. citizenship policies remain among the world's most liberal. Only Canada, Australia and New Zealand have friendlier naturalization procedures, said David S. North, an immigration scholar in Virginia. Under U.S. law, naturalization applicants generally must have lived here as legal residents for five years (three years for spouses of citizens), show good "moral character," demonstrate proficiency in English and pass a test in U.S.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
August 13, 2010 |
Republican U.S. Senate nominee Carly Fiorina said Thursday that she opposes calls from some conservatives to alter the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all people born in the United States. Fiorina sought to appeal to conservative voters on immigration issues during her party's primary this spring, strongly backing Arizona's tough new law on illegal immigration, for example. But she drew the line Thursday at the question of denying birthright citizenship — an issue that could be highly controversial among the state's large number of Latino voters.