To curb criminal activity by aliens, to defend against acts of international terrorism, to protect American workers from unfair labor competition, and to relieve pressure on public services by strengthening border security and stabilizing immigration into the United States.

Is his argument that it’s no longer needed since Obama has fixed all those problems?

This is awesome!
Did Senator War is Lost have any Democratic co-sponsors on this? Any Democrat supporters?

Yes, a Mason-Dixon poll out today showed Reid leading Angle by a weak 46-44%. That’s right. The incumbent Senate Majority Leader STILL cannot break 50% in the polls. After spending millions and millions of dollars promoting him and tearing down his opponent. Here’s a key excerpt:

“More than half of those surveyed, 51 percent, said the Senate majority leader’s influence is not too valuable to give up, while 45 percent said Nevada can’t afford to lose his clout,”

Notice that the 45% tracks very closely with the 46% Reid received. He’s in VERY bad shape.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/13/angle-reid-race-still-tight/

If the election were held today Sharron Angle would WIN.

The only way Reid can pull out a victory is if so-called conservatives and Republicans actually fall for the tripe and believe the garbage being spewed about Angle by Reid, Dems in general and the media (but I repeat myself).

Welcome to your classes in Spanish, senors.

Who are Dems who were in the Senate that long ago who could be asked if they actively opposed this — Boxer? Murray? Plus Feinstein? Dodd? Akaka, Inouye, there must be others.

I am definitely for Birthright citizenship, and definitely against repealing it. you are born on US soil, you are American!

If we were to deport their parents while they are minors, they would be free to come back whenever they wanted, when they are 18 or older or whenever. If they are over 18 and their parents are illegal, then their parents could be deported, but they woudl be free to stay. That doesn’t give their parents any rights.

I know a lot of Europeans and Asians who fly to america to take advantage fo the birthright citizenship…it’s the rules, they are using them….fine.

I wish Erick and the rest woudl get off this kick, because it is easy to paint as racist. Being against illegal immigration, means being against canadians and europeans and whoever else enters and stays illegally….but this anti-birthright citizenship just seems like people are getting on an anti-people stance.

or any other group that wishes to bring us down, come to the United States for the express purpose of having anchor babies and then, after Child is born, leave with child to endoctrinate child and send the US citizen back 18 years later? I bet the Russians during the cold war wish they could have thought this up because it would have saved them a lot of money on sleepers. I t would have made it alot easier for them to keep the sleeper in line too and not decide they actually LIKE America.

nt

The more publicity Reid’s hypocrisy gets, the more Dems/libs will try to trun the topic to infighting about birthright citizenship. It is critical that we avoid falling into this trap! Birthright citizenship is a SEPARATE topic of debate that does need to be addressed, but not as a diversion from exposing Reid’s hypocrisy and getting him out of the Senate.
It is so tempting to interject comments about the actual issue of citizenship, but I hope we (by which I mean conservatives in general) can keep the focus on Reid and his idiocy instead of devolving into inter-Republican arguing about citizenship. We can do that later when Reid is gone! (and the discussion can actually dispense with the emotional liberl rhetoric).

“… to protect American workers from unfair labor competetion …”

Since NAFTA passed in December 1993 and Reid voted against it, I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to assume that this was Reid’s attempt to demonstrate his pro-union loyalty by denying American citizenship to MEXICANS. Say it again. MEXICANS.

Now that unions are desperately pro-illegal immigration to prop up their various Ponzi schemes, he’s okay with that, too.

So, who controls Harry Reid? I would love, love, love to see how Reid would defend this.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395

I knew that he once had some nativist leanings, but this is beyond anything I had heard. Of course, we should be careful not to say that Reid is bad because he supported birthright citizenship, but rather because he is being hypocritical. That gives us a twofer of rapping Reid and gaining more credibility for altering birthright citizenship: it won’t seem as partisan if a big-time Dem once supported it.

your headline at “Harry Reid is a hypocrite.”

But seriously, either way this whole birthright citizenship issue is a big distraction. Barack, the Prince of Peace, manages to double the ante in Afghanistan, but can’t spare more than a thousand National Guard troops on the Mexican border to protect from a violent invasion by drug cartels and indentured servant trafficking rings?

In 1993, when Reid introduced the legislation in question, most of the unions were opposed to illegal immigration because they thought that the latinos coming from Central and South America would take jobs away from union members and were not at all likely to be part of the union movement. Harry Reid was just throwing a bone to his union buddies to protect their interests.

Now the thinking is that all those illegal immigrants are good for the Democrat party if only they can be granted amnesty. So again, Reid is just towing the party line and throwing his constituents a bone. He is looking out for his party, though not for the United States. People likely to vote for Reid will not likely be impressed by charges of inconsistency.

Trying to hammer Reid for inconsistency on this issue while avoiding the anchor baby discussion is an exercise in futility. The issue is too deeply heart-felt. For me, if I knew a candidate was clearly against curbing the anchor baby practice, I definitely would not support that candidate, period, no questions asked, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. That is a vote killer issue, just like the abortion question is for many voters. Bring it up for discussion at your own peril.

Reid apologized in 2006, on the senate floor. Maybe not a sterling apology, but gives him some cover I think – not many senators (or politicians of any sort who haven’t broken the law) apologize in public.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/reid-speech-in-2006.html

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard who wrote 14th the clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

“The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete.”

US Attorney General (1873);

“The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.” (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

Several states like North Carolina and New Jersey had allegiance clauses on immigration at the time. The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th of “jurisdiction,” understood in the sense of “allegiance,” “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens…” was in a sense what some states already had.

The first attempt was the Republican Civil Rights Act asserted “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”. The Civil Rights Act, which Johnson had vetoed on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional invasion of states’ rights, thus a constitutional amendment was needed. The purpose of this was to overturn Dred Scott v. Sanford http://laws.findlaw.com/us/60/393.html and the question of sovereignty, jurisdiction thereof, allegiance, absolute and complete jurisdiction thereof remains a dilemma.

The 14th did not originally mean automatic citizenship, of the language introduced, the pretence appears to be ancillary definitions that will pervert the original intent.

Moe is right, the most important thing here is how we can use this to hurt Reid. We can use that he flip-flopped, and we can also use that he feels the need to apologize for a well-crafted piece of legislation because he constantly panders to whoever he needs votes from.

Second, it illustrates the problems Democrats have with identity politics, when groups collide. Clearly, they can’t be in favor of this legislation, otherwise they are racists just like those stinkin’ Republicans (and we all know they are racist). But they were for it way back then because the unions wanted it. So who wins? The unions or the illegal immigrants? These are the problems you get into when your principles are tied to groups and subject to change like the winds.

Third, and a distant 3d in terms of the NV Senate race, but important to the country … this is a spectacularly well written piece of legislation. I’ve been saying for weeks that Congress just needs to use the power delegated to is under Section 5 of the 14th Amd to implement the Amendment with regard to “under the jurisdiction of.” I can’t see how the Supreme Court could strike that down, given that Congress would be implementing what was clearly the intent of the amendment, from the congressional record, and doing so expressly as authorized by the Amendment.

It’s not “punishing” babies to “take” American citizenship away from them. The law would implement change at a point in time, and babies born after that would never have had citizenship to be taken away. Plus they are ALL citizens of whatever country their mother is a citizen of, and we should simply contact their consulate and get them registered. And if the mother is here legally then the baby gets the same status. If the mother is not, then the baby isn’t either, and they both have to go.

Moe,
PLEASE read the 14th and the framers’ and their contemporaries’ actual words regarding the intent and meaning of the 14th before nobly spouting your heroic, albeit misplaced, support for birthright citizenship. Why can’t we stick to the law for a change? To do so, doesn’t make one less compassionate, just more informed. How novel that would be these days. For a nice, brief, objective analysis of the 14th see the post on birthright citizenship at Post&Email. If, after reading the words of the 14th’s framers you still support birthright citizenship, then your blinders are permanently anchored and both reason and the rule of law have absolutely no hope in your circle.

Call it the Harry Reid Immigration Reform bill.

Shove it in his face until November.