Still a bad and dangerous idea

AP is reporting that birthright citizenship will be back before Congress again soon.

A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface — kindling bitter debate even if it fails to become law. At issue is “birthright citizenship” — provided for since the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Section 1 of that amendment, drafted with freed slaves in mind, says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants. Thus they contend that federal legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to end birthright citizenship.

With more than 70 co-sponsors, Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal tried to include a revocation of birthright citizenship in an immigration bill passed by the House in mid-December. GOP House leaders did not let the proposal come to a vote.

James Joyner calls this debate silly. I'll go further and call it dangerous. I've made my opinions known in posts here and here. Steve Benen clearly points out that Supreme Court precedent is not on the side of any changes proposed by Congress because of the 14th ammendment. An anchor baby can't apply for their parents till the child becomes an adult. So isn't this pure demagogurey if not bigotry by some on the right? I think its the former by our politicians, and the majority of those who support it just haven't thought this issue through.

Open Post- Third World County, Adam's Blog, Is it just me?, Uncooperative Blogger,