Aunt B takes to task those who favor denying birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. She contends that it is hypocritical to argue for strict constructionism on the one hand while ignoring what the 14th Amendment says on the other:
Many of you are clinging desperately to the notion that the 2nd Amendment means what it says. Well, if Representative Lynn and her colleagues succeed in making the 14th Amendment mean something other than what it clearly says–”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.”–what kind of precident do you think that sets for the next time one of us Lefty crackpots tries to argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says?
What kind of precident is Lynn trying to set? And are you prepared to say that rights enumerated in the Constitution don’t apply should some Legislator gets a bug up her butt to undermine them?
I have mixed feelings on the whole birthright citizenship debate; I don’t want to punish babies for the misdeeds of their parents, but I also don’t want to encourage illegals to have children just so it will be harder to deport them. It is a more complex issue than partisans on either side want to admit.
I doubt that that the Framers had this in mind when they wrote the 14th Amendment, but it says what it says: the children of illegals ARE entitled to U.S. citizenship. If Rep. Lynn or anyone else want to change this, they should push for a new constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Until such an amendment is ratified, they do not have a legal leg to stand on.