Former Bush Aides Bash GOP's New Stance On 14th Amendment As 'Offensive,' 'Embarrassment'

Former aides to the George W. Bush Administration are retaliating against a recent flurry of Republican calls for a repeal or readdressing of the 14th Amendment, the landmark addition to the United States Constitution that, among other provisions, mandated that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" would be granted American citizenship.

In response to a recent movement by GOP brass to combat the so-called "anchor baby" or "birth tourism" issue created by the 14th Amendment, Mark McKinnon, media adviser to Bush's two presidential campaigns, attacked Republicans for forfeiting their allegiance to the legislative milestone.

"The 14th Amendment is a great legacy of the Republican party. It is a shame and an embarrassment that the GOP now wants to amend it for starkly political reasons," McKinnon told Politico. "Initially Republicans rallied around the amendment to welcome more citizens to this country. Now it is being used to drive people away."

The latest siege on the 14th Amendment was recently mounted by Lindsey Graham, and has since been fostered by other high-ranking Senate Republicans such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who have argued that this part of the Constitution is ripe for a change. Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, however, disagreed this weekend on an appearance on ABC's "This Week."

"That is the wisdom of the authors of the 14th Amendment: They essentially wanted to take this very very difficult issue -- citizenship -- outside of the political realm," Gerson, now a columnist for the Washington Post, said Sunday. "They wanted to take an objective standard, birth, instead of a subjective standard, which is the majorities at the time. I think that's a much better way to deal with an issue like this."

Cesar Conda, former domestic policy adviser to Vice President Cheney, has also weighed in, Politico reports, calling the latest Republican undertaking of Constitutional revision "offensive."

But that hasn't stopped the incoming generation of GOP hopefuls from picking up the 14th Amendment issue as a campaign platform concept.

Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle recently said that "Congress needs to become involved" in the "anchor baby issue," while New Hampshire "mama grizzly" and Senate hopeful Kelly Ayotte expressed her desire to address 14th Amendment changes over the weekend.

Comments

[afraidofheights]

01:41 AM on 08/12/2010

Lindsey Graham and the Republicans are seeking to repeal and replace the 14th Amendment. According to House Minority Leader, John Boehner, they want to replace it with a 28th Amendment that is twice as strong. They claim that the Democrats slipped the 14th Amendment through as part of the $15,000 Buggy Bailout Bill of 1866 therefore it should not be valid anyhow.

Read this article. VERY FUNNY.

http://www.dailygoat.com/?p=2508

[chaya]

05:40 PM on 08/11/2010

Watch all the candidates flocking to this new campaign promise with their "anchor baby" language to capitalize on peoples' fears.

Now watch them, newly elected, laugh at their gullible backers and get down to the real gritty hard work of a rightwing politician: growing the aristocracy for a sizable commission.

[docmark]

05:23 PM on 08/11/2010

Anyone watch Anderson Cooper last night? One topic was "Anchor Babies". One of the guests was a Republican State Senator from Texas. Her name was Biddle (Biggle, Bittle whatever). These stupid clams and arguments made by Texas lawmakers are becoming an embarrassment. There was no substance to her arguments. I couldn't decide whether she was more concerned about "Illegal Immigration" or the "National Security Threat" posed by these "Anchor Babies" as future terrorists.Her comments were all over the place. Cooper politely asked her where she obtained her information. She mentioned something about ex-FBI agents. When asked to elaborate, she became unsettled and said something to the effect,"Anderson, when I talked to your people, they didn't tell me that I'd had to provide you with that information". Her official statement of proof was, " Everybody knows it. It's common knowledge"...and... "I'm a Grandmother". Gulp.
Thankfully, the Democrat State Senator from Texas used logic and provided verifiable facts. He remained calm. She was onbiously out of her league. She probably would've received a much better reception at Faux News. Who knows, maybe they were invited to be one of their "expert" analysts.
And last week, Jon Stewart played a clip of Congressman Gohbert (R),TX who sounded just as stupid with his "Anchor Baby" statements. I don't blame Stewart for using Gohbert as a target of his satiric wit. It was hilarious.
Everytime a network reports the latest "stupid" claim made by Conservatives, I'm thinking, "Please...not another Texan".

[chaya]

06:08 PM on 08/11/2010

Apparently Biddle/Biggle/Bittle is operating from the same playbook as Sharron Angle. Right-wingers have been running Fox News so long that they're beginning to believe the reporter's job is to ask them the "right" questions and make them look good.

[ZenSufi]

05:20 PM on 08/11/2010

I hear that they want to repeal the 14th Amendment, and make the repeal retroactive.

[chaya]

06:09 PM on 08/11/2010

They can't do that. If they did that, corporations would no longer be entitled to equal protection with citizens.

[JimR]

04:55 PM on 08/11/2010

Just for fun, I think the Democrats should go along with this talk of changing the Fourteenth Amendment. Then they should raise the idea of changing the Second Amendment while we're at it, to make it clear that the government has broad powers in the regulation of guns.

[RobinJoJo]

04:54 PM on 08/11/2010

Some people here need to actually read the constitution. The new for the 14th ammendment was to make the SLAVES AND THE CHIKDREN IF SLAVES citizens. It is truly sickenig to me that there are people who still dint see this ploy for what it is - pure, unadulterated xenophobia and racism. We have devolved back to those times. If people would pay attention and educate themselves they would see they're being played. Sadly, that won't happen because the vast majority are lazy and would rather be told what to think. And to think these are the same people who acuse a certain potus of turning this country into a facist state. Ignorance is fatal.

[Jane Hillingham]

04:19 PM on 08/11/2010

I am just completely baffled as to why the Conservatives are now saying they want to change the Constitution, it is not "their" Constitution it is OUR Constitution. And for a party who screams and yells about the "Constitution" and how much they "love" it, here they are using babies of all things to turn even more people against the Hispanic community but for all of the people who find the term "anchor baby" so offensive. And this coming from the party who proclaims to be "pro life" now they want to patrol corridors of the hospitals and throw babies out of this country. How PATHETIC. These politicians know full well that the 14th amendment has virtually NO chance of being changed and yet they are out there pandering to their base for votes, they should be ashamed, but sadly they are not. I hope they pay dearly for this come November

[TaxpayingVoter]

04:45 PM on 08/11/2010

Fanned and faved.

[flyjet787]

05:20 PM on 08/11/2010

Jane: Fav'ed. I agree w/you completely. Unfortunately, they aren't going to pay dearly in November....Dem's will. As unfair as it is, that's what will happen. I just hope we lose fewer seats than predicted.

[Henri101]

03:55 PM on 08/11/2010

" A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy". Benjamin Disraeli(1804-1881)

[hrpmap]

03:18 PM on 08/11/2010

Is this a preveiw of comming attractions? I would bet that it is, and soon more states will follow. the states are in trouble not from their own miss-management, but from federal innaction on the issue of what to do to curb the current crises as well as many other problems.. In a situation like this I am sure that many who are in favor of amnesty and against enforecement of our laws are doing so becase their is undoudtadly marriages and romances in the mix. The immediate response for those with such a problem should get professional help, not oppose the law, things are changing fast, begin the process of researching legal channels, waiting until the time of responsibility is foolish.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67A2XS201008

[den1953]

02:39 PM on 08/11/2010

Isn't this what the right wing is all about these days no idea's or solutions so use embarassment to mask the public so no one ask's you important questions, like the old trick of bait and switch the dumbing down of America is simply astonishing to most Americans!

[seattledemocrat]

02:39 PM on 08/11/2010

More GOP HYPOCRISY. All we hear from the mouths of Palin, Bachman, Kyl, etc.. is how the Obama WH is dismantling the Constitution, yet it's the GOP who want the repel the 14th Amendment because they don't like it. Bush and GOP trampled the Constitution but we heard nothing about that.

I have never gotten an answer when I ask for specific examples of Dems/Obama dismantling the Constitution. And that's because all people hear is the GOP echo chamber of lies, NO FACTS.

The fact is they just don't like that we have bl.ack president and they will do what ever they can smear him.

[kamakiri001]

03:25 PM on 08/11/2010

What about the time when Nancy Pelosi said that she can force everyone to purchase health insurance (by using the Commerce Clause as justification)?

[Cacey]

04:00 PM on 08/11/2010

While the courts will probably decide this, I would question the legality of every ER being mandated to accept allcomers. Go to an ER, show proof of insurance, get treated. Don't show proof, don't get treated.

[Jevad]

02:33 PM on 08/11/2010

The GOP was "Offensive" and an "Embarassment" even before their stance on the 14th Amendment!!!

[Cacey]

02:29 PM on 08/11/2010

I posted this question last night and receive two extremely variant answers. Does anyone know how many "Anchor Babies" are born in the US in any given year? Are we making a mountain out of a molehill?

[den1953]

02:42 PM on 08/11/2010

Yes in relative terms but when has that ever stopped the Republicans from lying about anything they want to make a point on, remember the kidnap capital of the world, or they come here to have gangs and sell drugs, AZ has the highest crime rate.

[judesuper]

02:27 PM on 08/11/2010

The 'Offensive,' 'Embarrassment' is having ka-ka-kyl as our alleged representation. He does nothing for Arizona, nothing for his constituents and nothing at all in the senate. Except whine, complain, and obstruct.

He's our 'Offensive,' 'Embarrassment' all right!

[TaxpayingVoter]

04:46 PM on 08/11/2010

Tell me about it. The man is less than useless.

[judesuper]

02:43 PM on 08/12/2010

Exactly!

Yet he continues to collect his pay and benefits!

Fanned taxpayingvoter!

[TRex86]

02:21 PM on 08/11/2010

The remarkable short-sightedness of the Republican leadership is matched only by their poor short term memory. During W's two terms immigration reform ran aground within the Republican party. It pitted two factions against each other: the xenophobes against the businessmen. The former needed a scapegoat for their failed lives; the latter needed cheap labor.

Fast forward six years. The xenophobes and their Tea Party wacko friends have won the day. Illegal immigrants are the scapegoats du jour because they allegedly are consuming more resources than they produce (not); they allegedly are causing a crime wave (not); we just don't like them furriners cluttering up our neighborhoods (yep). To pander to the basest of the base the Republicans have repeated Pete Wilson's folly, antagonizing the fastest growing segment of the voting public--Hispanics. Way to go!

Ironically, we will need more Hispanics (legal or not) for a financially secure future. Their burgeoning numbers promise a growing tax base both by immigration and high rates of childbirth. Without the Hispanic explosion the demographics of the next 40 years will be prohibitively top heavy with old white people, crushing a stagnant tax base.

Politically of course it's hard to fathom Republican stupidity. They have rallied around a tautology ("illegal is illegal") as though it were a profundity. They've saved the Democrats from their usual craven cowardice. (Even the Dems will stand up for the 14th Amendment. I hope).

[JuanDimensional]

02:55 PM on 08/11/2010

Two questions: both serious.
1. Can you point me to any studies that show that the cost of educating children of illegal immigrants who are either illegal themselves, or born here of illegal parents, and the cost of providing health care for those illegal immigrants who can't afford it, coupled with the cost of both the public and charitable assistance they receive is less than the sales taxes and unclaimable Social Security benefits they pay?

2. Why are we better off with Hispanics than other immigrants? If the purpose is to provide for us in our old age, wouldn't we be better off searching out well-educated speakers of English, such as Eastern Indians, who have cultures geared toward education? There's more than 700 million of them. The cost of educating 1st generation Hispanics, who are, generally, non-English speakers and relatively poorly educated creates added expense and reduced earning (and taxpaying) power needlessly.

[TRex86]

03:28 PM on 08/11/2010

Easiest first:
2. Hispanics have a very high birthrate. I suppose we could do as well opening the door to Islamic immigrants as this is the only other sizable population worldwide with similar rates of childbearing. We can't meet our population growth needs cherry-picking highly educated people from anywhere.
1. You can Google several studies that demonstrate a net positive contribution of illegal immigrants to the economy, but you know that since you stacked your question by only asking about sales taxes and unclaimable social security. Hispanics came here to work and fill a niche of undesirable jobs. Their absence would be felt profoundly by agri-business among others that rely on cheap labor. Do you want to pick strawberries for a living?
3. This country consists of immigrants, including the native Americans who crossed the Bering Straights 30,000 years ago. The richness and diversity made this country great. (And puleeze spare me the "illegal is illegal" nonsense. Republicans are quite selective in choosing which laws to enforce: how about arresting employers?). What is so pathetic about the Teapublicans is that this matter is an internal feud within the party with no empirical data to support the "crisis" of Hispanic immigration. Spare us, please.

[JuanDimensional]

03:36 PM on 08/11/2010

Just did a few rough numbers for myself. According to the Pew Trust there are @ 1.5 million children of school age here illegally and 4 million natural born children of one or more illegal parents, for a total of 5.5 million children who would not be here if the borders were effectively patrolled. According to the U.S census via Wiki Answers http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf page 13, the average public school child is educated at a cost of $9,666 dollars for year for a total of $53.163 billion dollars.

Assuming 12 million illegal immigrants minus 1.5 million who are in school and presumptively not working leaves 10.5 million illegal immigrants paying taxes. So to break even on educating both their legal and illegal children they would need to pay $5,063 a year in sales taxes and unclaimable FICA and Social Security taxes. That seems like an awful lot to me. Do we really think the average illegal immigrant is paying more than $400 dollars a month in taxes?