Janet Napolitano Calls Talk Of Repealing Birthright Citizenship 'Just Wrong'

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday that she was "surprised" by Republican-led efforts to amend the 14th amendment and reverse the country's longstanding policy of granting birthright citizenship

Addressing the debate over the issue while making a guest appearance at the White House daily briefing, the DHS Secretary called the movement that is gaining steam on the GOP side of the aisle, including among lawmakers formally sympathetic to immigration reform, "just wrong."

She declined, however, to address the support for this movement offered by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a former but still potential White House ally on immigration reform.

"I have to tell you I have [been] surprised, to say the least, that discussions we have had about amending the U.S. constitution [have happened] before we can even get to the table about amending the statutes that actually carry out immigration policy," Napolitano said. "Any talk about amending the constitution is just wrong."

Those remarks made Napolitano the highest-ranking administration official yet to weigh in on the debate about the future of the 14th amendment. Though, later on in the briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made it clear that the president shared his homeland security secretary's sentiments.

If Republicans were worried about illegal immigrants coming into this country for the purposes of getting their unborn children U.S. citizenship, Gibbs stressed, the fastest way to resolve the issue was through legislation, not changes to the constitution.

"The process for augmenting the constitution takes a long time," said Gibbs. "With a little leadership we could have comprehensive immigration reform."

That self-professed constitutionalists within the GOP tent were now open to tinkering with the constitution, he added, was "rich in its irony it is wrong in its approach."

Comments

[andiannj]

05:58 AM on 09/09/2010

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the of the State wherein they reside."

No matter how they try they can not over ride the constitution. Only Congress has the power to put forth amendments. And then the states have the power to vote for or against it.

It's pretty clear which party wants to change the constitution to TAKE AWAY rights. I thought the Constitution was suppose to be sacred to these people.

[AnnainLA]

06:17 PM on 08/25/2010

we don't need to revise or repeal the 14th amendment in order to stop granting birtright citizenship to the children of illegals because the 14th was never meant to confer citizenship to anchor babies. Senator Howard and the other drafters of the 14th's citizenship clause made it clear that it would not applly to the children of illegals and they thought it was so obvious that it would not confer citizenship to the children of illegals that the only mention of this fact was the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" No Supreme Court justice held that the 14th granted citizenship to illegals's children until one comment in a footnote by Brennen in a modern case , so for a hundred years congress and the Sup Ct did not infer that the 14th gave automatic citizenship at birth but one footnote is enough to go against the intent of the drafters of the amendment and subsequent congresses .

[andiannj]

05:25 AM on 09/09/2010

Mitt Romney is an anchor baby. His father George was born in Mexico to American parents who had freely given up their US citizenship to practice polygamy. George moved back to the United States illegally, during the Mexican revolution. George grew up and married Lenore, a girl from Utah, and they had four anchor babies, of which Mitt was the fourth.

Michelle Malkin, Bobby Jindal & Nikki Haley are also anchor babies.

[snykerdoodle]

11:58 AM on 08/16/2010

"Gibbs stressed the fastest way to resolve the issue was through legislation, not changes to the constitution."

An even faster way would be actual enforcement of what has been legislated. Legislation without corresponding enforcement is mere politricking and pontification.

[Blufftonian]

10:00 AM on 08/16/2010

Why should illegal immigrants profit from their illegal conduct by gaining the enormous benefits associated with the grant of citizenship to their offspring?

[EricEFNY]

05:55 PM on 08/22/2010

At least one of the parents should be US citizens or Permanent Residents to qualify. This of course would take an amendment to the constitution. Just a thought.

[imsosure]

05:04 AM on 08/16/2010

It may be wrong, but what has most people upset is the law breaking that gets people into the country before the is a chance for a birth here in the USA. Try wearing that issue around lady before you propose to make an issue out of the process it entails.

[FatFeline]

03:39 AM on 08/16/2010

Napolitano's argument is just wrong.

[lvdragonlady]

12:44 AM on 08/16/2010

I have 2 thoughts on this issue.
1. Stop it here and now and may even put it into effect retro, so that ANY child born before say 2000 are no longer citizens of America and send them all back where they came from.
2. let it continue BUT send the parents AND the children back to their country or origin and when the children are 18, then they can come back to America legally.

[twhiting9275]

11:36 PM on 08/15/2010

" the fastest way to resolve the issue was through legislation, not changes to the constitution."
Yet, when legislation is passed, such as Arizona's legislation that actually ADDRESSES illegal citizens, what happens? The federal government attacks it. Amazing, it's a no win scenario here

[Quasi Libertarian]

11:35 PM on 08/15/2010

I wouldn't support changing the 14th Amendment....If a child is born in the US then that is an American....We need ti Identify these kids and take them into American care and send the illegal parents home. Maybe if these people having Anchor-Babies realized that these kids would be taken away and they would get deported it would slow the flow of these babies.

[twhiting9275]

11:40 PM on 08/15/2010

There are a few issues with your proposed scenario:
#1 - We (the U.S.) look like the bad guy. There's no way we look good there
#2 - The foster care system is already overloaded. Where, exactly do these kids go?
#3 - Who pays for the hospital bill? As it is, we, the taxpayers are paying for it, usually, so not much changes there.

This creates more of a burden on the U.S. taxpayer. Denying citizenship means they go back home where they belong, with the future burden on our taxes with them.

[Quasi Libertarian]

11:47 PM on 08/15/2010

1. We already look like the bad guy....
2. Newborn Babies are among the most sought out in adoptions and I beleve many people would not be flying over to Russia if thet could adopt kids here with a nice tax incentive
3. We will pay the tax bills....already do. But if the parent(s) is deported, then at least it will only be the baby we are caring for...

The whole concpet is to be a deterrent. People have babies here now as a means to game the system. If the incentive is gone pehaps in the long run will will have fewer to deal with.

[CessnaDriver]

02:09 PM on 08/17/2010

"O'r the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave!"

[aonemandog]

10:50 PM on 08/15/2010

Janet was a very poor choice for this cabinet post. She is gutless and has no backbone. Everyone needs to realize that people are using the baby issue to create anchors for themselves. One of the biggest reasons you hear against deporting these illegal immigrants is that they have had babies here who are now American citizens. We need to Amend the 14th Amendment to read that at least one parent must be a legal citizen of the USA at the time of birth for the baby to be a citizen.

[Ben Sell]

10:43 PM on 08/15/2010

Has anyone had any trouble with getting comments deleted or rewritten by some of the moderators? Im beginning to think that the Huffpost is attempting to rig the fight....

[Alphaone]

08:36 PM on 08/15/2010

"She declined, however, to address the support for this movement offered by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a former but still potential White House ally on immigration reform."

My question is why should she address what Lindsay Graham says? Utterly stupid reasoning on the part of this writer. So then she addresses Graham's support, these pundits would then want her to address Kyle, McCain, Bohenor et al, and where would it stop. Just can't report on something without digging into some irrelevant controversy. She addressed the substantive issue and that is "Don't tamper with the 14th amendment to score political points". The GOP as strict defenders of the constitution are at odds with themselves on this issue and this says they are a bunch of hypocrites.

[Main Street Blues]

05:40 PM on 08/15/2010

If you were to ask Janet Napolitano what birthright citizenship is...you would get a "deer in the headlight" stare because I doubt if she has even a slight idea of what she's talking about. Janet Napolitano is one of the best tools the Republicans have to work with in gaining seats in the House and Senate this November...well she and Timmy Geithner too. Napolitano our Immigrations Expert...because she visited the Arizona Mexico border once while she was Governor of the State. My favorite statement she made so far....everything has worked like it should have! Love it!!

[Yurdelite51]

07:50 PM on 08/15/2010

Keep dreaming...

[PoorRichardsHeartache]

03:47 PM on 08/15/2010

Considering the level of corrupt/inept politicians at both the federal and state level, do you really want this crew screwing with the constitution?

[GinnyW]

03:24 PM on 08/15/2010

There would go huge numbers of first generation Americans when visas lapse or otherwise become "illegal"! Fortunately, there's not a chance in h@ll that this absurd idea could get all the way to passing two-thirds of the states.