ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Tea Party Against The 14th Amendment .

Updated on November 8, 2015

When the Racists and the Bigots Are in Charge

So,emboldened by the somewhat strong showing in the midterm elections ,(although not the tsunamy prognosticated by the talking heads)and with a scorched earth approach to governing the right wing nuts have among other little jewels of policy making and legislating 14th amendment for if not completely reversing it which they know is impossible try to chip away at least part of it as is the denial of US citizenship to people born in the US The hypocrisy of these people has no limits,it's almost comical to hear one of the darlings of the extreme right Mark Levin who dedicates great parts of his radio show to lecture his listeners on how the democrats and liberals are always trying to legislate from the bench and interpret the constitution according to their convenience tell us now that where the 14th amendment clearly and unambiguosly states "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"

Now,it seems about thirteen or fourteen states want to followArizona's lead as the US capital of hate and deny citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, and therefore punishing someone that wasn't even born for a supposed offfense of his parent,think about it, even if you are a dittohead you have to see the injustice in this!!!

So the net result of these policies would be the creation of an underclass, much to the similarity of the untouchables in India,people without a country, without nationality,modern 21st century pariahs.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • mio cid profile image

      mio cid 3 years ago from Uruguay

      That is absolutely true.The problem is that with their tactics they're turning what would be a 60/40 advantage for the democrats as it has been before into a 95/5 in favor of the democrats, and with the black and hispanic electorate voting at those ratios it is impossible for the republicans to ever win the white house again,because there is no redistricting or Gerrymandering in presidential or senate elections

    • Coolpapa profile image

      Coolpapa 3 years ago from Florida

      I believe the Conservative Right's worry is their concern that the majority of these new potential citizens will become Progressives (as opposed to Regressives). If Republicans thought they were going to be able to add 1/2 million new Republicans to the voteing rules, Boehner would be standing at the border passing out $100 bills and welcoming the immigrants!

    • mio cid profile image

      mio cid 6 years ago from Uruguay

      I'M sure eventually some solution will be found to this situation as there always is to everything although sometimes solutions to problems take longer than one would want that's the way democracy works and thank god for that.I having been illegal for many years as well as most of my family am gratefull every day for the opportunity to call myself a US citizen today and what the deportation happy people have no idea is how much money and hard work and years it takes to become first a legal permanent resident and after five years if you have a pristine record you can apply for citizenship.

    • American View profile image

      American View 6 years ago from Plano, Texas

      Why the Hype? Because it is a campaign ploy by the Dems to get the Hispanic vote. In reality the Arizona law is like the law already in the Federal books. So why do the states need the laws for their states? Simply put, the Feds do not patrol the streets so they do not enforse the law. But states have local police on the streets to enforse the law

      US Code 8 Sec. 1373. Communication between government agencies and the

      Immigration and Naturalization Service

      The US law speaks of sharing information to see if someone is in the United States illegally. The Arizona law says the same plus rules of engagement. So it is false when Democrats say the police will kick in your front door to see if you are legal. There are limited situations in which a police officer can ask it they are illegal.

      Is it so wrong to enforce a law? For those who are against it allowing illegal’s to break the law without fear of prosecution, what if we did not enforce all our laws. Maybe the police will not solve a murder, or stop a robbery, or any other crime. I would think they would say I was crazy. Well, what’s the difference? If we let one break the law we should let all break the law.

      The Arizona law as well as in other states is a good start. But we should not deport everyone. If they have a record, deport them, if they were capture during the commission of a crime, the serve their time and then get deported. But as for all those who are good people, hard working people, why not give them a chance to stay? They are trying to live the American dream. So how about this. Give them 30 days to get a legal status. If they do not try, re arrest them and deport them. But if they apply, get the legal status, they stay and enjoy all this country has to offer. If they have applied but maybe the process was moving slowly, give them another 30 day extension. But no more than 6 extensions can be granted.

      There are so many advantages for changing their status from illegal to legal. It would be good for the country; it would be good for the people.

      Go to my hub page and read the hub an Arizona Law. There are 2 links there so you can read each law in its entirety

    • sir slave profile image

      sir slave 7 years ago from Trinity county CA.

      Thank you for bringing into sight the nasty rheoric of the right.....they will not win the whitehouse back until they kick all the bigots out of their party(which they wont), so get ready for a long wait since this country is only getting more diverse by the day.

    • FitnezzJim profile image

      FitnezzJim 7 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

      DTR005, There is a difference between speculation and reading and understanding history. So, concur, speculation is indeed a slippery slope.

      Mio Cid, excellent write up. I would offer several additional thoughts.

      Constitutional Amendments are the slowest of all of our change processes. It involves getting two-thirds of both House and Senate just to propose the Amendment to the States. Then it takes two-thirds of the states to approve it before it becomes a change to the Constitution. That process has literally taken as long as 200 years. So, plenty of time to write your Congressman, Senator, and your state's legislatures to argue against it.

      Strongly concur on not holding children accountable for parents actions. If anything, it should be the other way around. I actually have a Hub because of that position.

      I was not aware of the impact and extent of the full caste system in India. Thanks for that link, it is sad indeed, and I’d hope that we here never outgrow the concept of ‘equal opportunity’.

    • DTR0005 profile image

      Doug Robinson 7 years ago from Midwest

      Well, if I recall correctly, the 2nd Amendment was originally written to provide for a well-armed militia - you know, the government calls up its citizens in times of military need. Now that's what it says without any spin or postulation on what the "original intent" of the Amendment was. Speculating on "original intent" is a slippery slope that slides both ways...

      And your last paragraph is interesting if not a little troubling... So should "someone in knowing" test the loyalty of a potential presidential candidate before being allowed to run? I assure you - I was born and raised here - my family on both sides have been here since the 1760's, and I guarantee you I WOULD NOT FIT YOUR IDEAL OF PATRIOTISM... But, based on your logic, a subversive like myself would be much "better" as president than a "patriotic" son or daughter of illegal immigrants?

    • FitnezzJim profile image

      FitnezzJim 7 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

      If I recall correctly, the 14th Amendment was originally written for the purpose of ensuring that children born of former slaves could gain rightful citizenship in the US. It did not originally take into account the possibility that we would become lax in enforcing immigration laws, thus creating a loophole to the intent of the original constitutional citizenship requirements.

      I think it has less to do with bigotry or racism than it does with the fact that this has become a well-advertised loophole to our immigration laws, and appears to be taken advantage of by expectant parents.

      Consider this question: Would non-citizen parents stop having children here in the US if they knew their children could not be citizens?

      Consider this hypothetical situation: Would you want non-citizen parents to come to the US soley for the purpose of giving birth to their child, have them leave the country and raise their child according to something other than US law and loyalty, then have the child return when he's old enought to run for President? With our current understanding and commitment to enforcement, it could happen.

    • DTR0005 profile image

      Doug Robinson 7 years ago from Midwest

      This is a well-written and informative hub. I thank you for adding this commentary that will certainly be criticized by some as "the liberal left's" view on the 14th Amendment.

      Unfortunately, hard times bring out the worst in people- this is a statement backed up time and again by history.

      Germany during the 1920's and 30's is a classic and not-so-far-away in time and memory example of what government and their citizens are capable of given enough economic pressure and the right or rather "wrong" political environment.

      Immigrants, foreigners - the non-majority are always the first targets placed in the political crosshairs of a nation seeking a scapegoat.