Jon Stewart takes a long look at America’s political issues with illegal immigrants.  He analyzes the dreaded ‘anchor babies’ and wonders how illegal immigrants could plan ahead 18 years as he takes a look at the 14th amendment to see what had been said about it in 1866, where citizens worried about the dreaded’ Hottentot.’  Lindsay Graham discusses the Drop and Leave policy of illegal immigrants.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Born in the U.S.A.
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party


 Jon brought in Lou Dobbs as a voice of reason. 

Lou Dobbs who has spent much of his life discussing illegal immigration, weighed in on the topic and warned that the GOP was overstepping by proposing that the 14th amendment be repealed.  

Even Lou Dobbs isn’t on board with proposed constitutional amendment ending birthright citizenship, Watch him defend the 14th Amendment:

According to the Huffington Post:

The growing chorus of Senate Republicans urging repeal of the 14th Amendment as a means of denying citizenship to the children of immigrants received a rebuke Tuesday from, of all people, notorious immigration foe Lou Dobbs.

Appearing on Fox News, the former CNN host defended the constitutional amendment which provides birthright citizenship.

“The idea that anchor babies somehow require changing the 14th Amendment, I part ways with the Senators on that because I believe the 14th Amendment, particularly in its due process and equal protection clauses, is so important,” Dobbs said. “It lays the foundation for the entire Bill of Rights being applied to the states.”

That even Dobbs opposes the GOP push to repeal the 14th Amendment is a measure of just how radical the effort is. Some Republicans who signaled their support for the move as recently as Monday, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have already backtracked from their earlier support for broad review of the law.

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee wasn’t one of them. “The Constitution is not as clear as it first appears,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.) told reporters Tuesday. “I continue to hear good Americans explain to me they think it makes no sense

Those men who drew up the 14 Amendment in 1866 had the following concerns:

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people “born or naturalized in the United States” for a reason. They wished to directly repudiate the Dred Scott decision, which said that citizenship could be granted or denied by political caprice. They purposely chose an objective standard of citizenship — birth — that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction leaders established a firm, sound principle: To be an American citizen, you don’t have to please a majority, you just have to be born here

Political caprice?  When Lou Dobbs thinks ideas are over the top, they probably are. I am still stuck on the idea that others now why a couple has children. I am willing to bet it isn’t so the child can sponsor them 29 years down the road. That reasoning is just far too complex.


52 Thoughts to “Born in the U.S.A. –Dump the 14th!”

  1. Elena

    Even though I am feeling pretty down right now about last night debacle, Jon Stewart at least brought a smile to my face. I love the part in the beginning about babies and “but” !

  2. Second-Alamo

    Don’t remove it, just add the clause ‘to those legal residents only’ and the problem will be solved.

  3. Second-Alamo

    The death of the nun at the hands of an illegal alien in Virginia has made the national news, and no thread here? Plenty of negative discussion presented against the right, but this gets panned?

    (Side note: They defended Obama’s deportation stats as being greater than Bush’s, and so now he’ll lose the Hispanic vote also!)


    This was classic! Thanks so much for posting. I really need to start watching that show. We finally got DVR…I might have to actually start using it!

  5. SA, there is no need to do a thread on it. It is being discussed in the open thread. What could I possibly say that hasn’t been said.

    I find the link to Faux News very ….telling, by the way.

    Twinad, your life will never be the same once you start using your dvr. I love mine.

    Ah ha! There’s Corey talking to Retchin’ Gretchen….hmmmm….now how did they find him.

    I thought that Corey was telling how great a job his county was doing just a month ago.

  6. Elena

    What a “weird” coincidence! Corey on Fox News. Didn’t the nuns plead after the “sisters” death not to use her death as a poltical tool. Corey’s lack of morals and ethics still shocks me.

  7. @Moon-howler
    Lingamfelter did a good job making the point against the Federal government, not turning it into a local or state government circus as our beloved Chair is wont to do.

    In any event, thank you for Jon. I needed the laugh, too.

  8. @Elena
    From the newspaper story:

    –Such words, however, caused those at the monastery to cry foul. “The Benedictine Sisters are dismayed and saddened that this tragedy has been politicized and become an apparent forum for the illegal immigration agenda,” said Benedictine Sister Glenna Smith. “While grieving and dealing with the death and severe injuries of our sisters, we would like to re-focus attention on the consequences of drinking and driving, and on Christ’s command to forgive . ” Smith said the political arguments about immigration are close to “hate-inspiring.”

    She said Montano will surely face the justice system and that, someday, when he’s older, maybe he can become an upstanding member of society.–

  9. George S. Harris

    @Posting as Pinko
    Interesting about Lingamfelter–a couple or three weeks ago he was castigating Stewart for sticcking his nose into Commonwealth business and now he has fliip flopped and is carrying Stewart’s water. As Charles Dudley Warner said, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” Lingamfelter’s base includes many ultra-conservatives who will lap up the idea that he is supporting Stewart. They will never see or admit any flip flop onthe part of Lingamfelter. Am convinced that Lingamfelter and Stewart of cut from the same piece of political cloth and they play to the baser instincts.

  10. Thanks for sharing the Sister Glenna’s sentiments, Pinko. I don’t know how they can be so forgiving. I guess that is why their vocation is being a bride of Christ.

    I surely didn’t hear the same degree of outrage over the guy who killed the grandmother and 3 year old. He was sentenced last week.

  11. SA, back to your question….the Sisters of the Benedictine Order have asked that Sister Denise’s death not be political stimulus for the anti immigration debate. No thread here. The dark screen has several running with all sorts of comments. I will let them and Faux News handle it. (and they are almost on the half hour)

    Once again Prince William County is the eye of the storm. The focus is not an accident. Someone wants to get elected…[best Jon Stewart voice.]

  12. @Moon-howler
    The sisters are suffering terribly right now, and bringing up the immigration issue in tangent is beyond my comprehension when clearly, that discussion just makes their suffering worse. Why use these poor ladies as political collateral as Stewart et al are doing?

    Feds, please fix this damn system!

  13. marinm

    Can’t view the video at work but as an anchor baby I’ll put in my 2 cents. The Constitution is a framework and can change as long as the process for amendments is followed. If the People desire to change the 14th then it’s their will. I don’t believe changing it will have the desired effect, however.

    Those that support this measure – I don’t have ill will of you as I admire anyone willing to work towards a political goal. I don’t think the modification of the 14th will get the required 38 states and congressional approval. Much like Sen. Kerry’s epic failure at changing the 1st.. Be very, very cautious when looking to modify the Constitution.

    In my office there are two gents that I work with; one was an illegal from El Salvador and the other an illegal from Guatamala. They are now both citizens. One is a defense contractor with a higher clearance than I hold and the other is a Marine. Now, I’m not putting that out there to say that all illegals are good people looking for work. I know that there are some that are just simple bottom feeders. So, when we look at an amendment we have to realize that we will cut off our nose to spite our face.

    Fix current laws and enforce them. Much like gun laws we don’t really need ‘more’ immigration laws, we just need to enforce existing ones. We also need to make it so that the process doesn’t take 2-10 years to do it legally. And, I think we need to make it so that IF an illegal IS caught in a criminal matter that the alien should be given a fair trial, serve time and pay penalties and then be deported to the country of origin.

    I even support having a penal facility being set up in Georgia (government subsidy!) to hold habitual violaters of our immigration law so that after they serve time in a local/state jail for the initial criminal offense that they’re sent to this federal penal facility to serve an additional penalty for the 2nd (3rd, etc.) offense of re-enterting the US without valid authorization.

  14. Marin, I hope you will watch when you get home. It is funny!

    I almost agree with you. I think we need to change some laws because what we have isn’t working. Other than that, how is a 95% agreement?

    I like that you pointed out the worth and dignity of people who have had a change of status. I hate the rhetoric I hear that lumps everyone into being a bottom feeder.

    I have respect for people who work hard and try to make a better life for themself and their families. I also expect them to behave and obey our laws.

    Thanks for a perspective that only you can give!

  15. Rez

    Marin, if I may ask a couple of questions–what is your concept of comprehensive immigration reform and does it take Federal legislation to do it?

    I am always wary when people yell, “it’s broken” without saying what is broken. If it is enforcement, then it doesn’t take additional laws, it takes appropriations and will. If it the process takes too long, it is because of ICE or the law? If it is ICE, then fix ICE not change the law.

    So far in my lengthy thinking about it, there may be some fairness issues to deal with but it doesn’t take “comprehensive” reform to do it. I have been writing legislation for 20 years and I am astounded how simple things take thousands of pages to write.

    Does anyone realize that the pdf of HR 847 is 248 pages and it was to give first responders health care? Why is it 248 pages which no one understands.

    I am not a “deport them all” kind of guy but it seems to me that we haven’t even approached fixing something already in place. The issue of what to do with those here should not be part of “comprehensive immigration reform” as that issue is a symptom and not a cause. Fix the cause then fix the symptom.

    It should not take years to process the paperwork or the expense. There should not be a delay taking deportation action against people that are a danger in one way or another to our citizens. And I will even throw in (because I believe it in my heart) that we should recognize a stable, long marriage as proof that the marriage was not just a convenience for entry. I am sure that people would not stay married for 5 or more years, for example, if the sole motivation was entry. It would fail way earlier than that (like weeks).

    But even these things do not requires “CIR”.
    Sorry to ask questions and then expound. It isn’t intended to be rhetorical.

  16. marinm


    I think you answered your own question or at least answered it in much the same way that I would’ve. To me, fixing the system means that we look at the system in place to approve visa’s, resident alien and citizenship requests. Outside of volume what is causing the delay? On the flip side of that once we make compliance easier we need to push hard on enforcement. If you’re an illegal and caught doing something illegal you’re done. If your a legally present alien and you commit a felony – was nice knowing you but you just gave up your slot.

    Will the influx of immigrants on a whole ever change? Nope. We ARE the best country on this planet. No where else can anyone raise themselves from poverty (at least how we define poverty in the US which is radically different than how the rest of this planet does) to the top 1% by just having an idea and running with it. No one is tied to class in our country. You can choose to be a success or a failure. People and companies are willing to pay a fair negotiatied wage for labor. We have it GOOD here. I can see why people would want to leave the cesspools of Europe, Asia, Africa, Central and South America to be here.

    To me, every country outside of the US is French. 🙂

    Maybe we need to fire the govt workers at ICE and hire contractors? Do the work at three times the speed and at half the cost.

    After 5 years of marriage, stable employement, proven tax receipts and no criminal convictions as well as passing the citizenship (and voting for Cuccineilli), welcome to America. You are a citizen. At least that’s ICE under how I would run things. 😉

  17. REz, I think you answered your own question. I also think ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ is a buzz word. Who knows who started it.

    There is a great deal of sheer stupidity involved in immigration. For example, one of my friends taught with a woman from a European country. She came here on one of those visas that allows you to be here 3 years and then you go home. Period. First off, the woman had her visa but her husband, who came with her, was here for over a year before he could get a work visa. How stupid. The family would like to stay here after 3 years. She is an excellent teacher. That is probably out of the question. Why? That visa’s rules.

    It also takes years to process paper work. No wonder people are here illegally. Another case I know of involves a young woman whose family brought her here as a very young child. She is married to a marine. She attempted to get a status change which took several years. Why? Who the hell knows. We are all familiar with Twinad’s story. She has been married 10 years and her husband has not gotten his status adjusted.

    These things should not be happening.

  18. hello

    From a humanitarian aspect wouldn’t you want to do away with “if your born here your a citizen” aspect? This is causing THOUSANDS of late term pregnant women to take the life threatening trek over the boarder just to pop one out on “American” soil.

    Something to think about…. “The spike in births to unauthorized immigrants — 70 percent of whom come from Mexico or Central America — is largely due to their relative youth compared with the general population, as well as their greater propensity to marry and have children. ”

    From the ULTRA-LIB rag the Washington Post:

  19. hello

    Why can’t we kill the incentive for these pregnant women from a dangerous border crossing before they kill themselves or their children?

    If any of you on the left have a heart at all you would agree that not just anyone ‘born’ in the US is automatically an ‘citizen’. That would deter these women from risking not only their life but their unborn child’s life from crossing the border for one reason and one reason only.

    Now, call me an a-hole for that rational, I dare you.

    1. Read the 14th amendment, it says what it says.

      You assume everyone who comes here in a border crossing is pregnant. I would say darn few are. Many who come here pregnant have visitors visas.

      What is it that you want to do to them? Kill what incentive? Jobs?

      You sure have bought the who anti-immigration schtick…hook like and sinker.

  20. hello

    Hold on… let me tackle this as if I were a Dem or a ‘moderate’ like Moon.

    So, you want women and their unborn children to DIE! I see how it is, then just keep the status quoe. This MUST be changed NOW or else more women and their unborn children will die and nobody knows just how many!

  21. Furthermore, that newpaper article said not one thing about Latina women coming here to just have babies who would be future citizens. It isn’t there.

    It said they were of child bearing age and that the single men were just one part of the immigration equation. There are more young families here.

    That article was neither conservative nor liberal. It pretty much dealt with facts.

    How about you going out into the desert and rescuing all those people you are being a bleeding heart for, Hello. You couldn’t possibly tackle the problem as if you were me. You lack some basic equipment for that.

  22. Rez

    “It also takes years to process paper work. No wonder people are here illegally.”

    I can’t buy into that statement. If you reduced it to a year, you would still have many that would come here illegally. Some people in the ME generation want everything now and even 1 year is too long. So if this country of opportunity doesn’t enforce anything, why shouldn’t you come now and not wait even a year? And having lived in the SW, not everyone swims in shark infested waters or hides in dangerous vans to get here. Those are the extreme ones.

    Not everyone is raised with the idea of fair play after all. The more important question is what is the downside to coming. Certainly in the past 15-20 years, there has obviously not been a downside or else the issue wouldn’t be here. They have to worry about being caught but we have also seen is that even if caught, there is little likelihood of deportation (the prioritization of ICE and Homeland Security). I think

  23. Rez

    Sometimes I really like computers except when they post when I am not ready. oh well.

    I think Marinm is exactly right that this country is an irresistible magnet. I don’t blame one for wanting something better in life. I want something better in life too but I choose to stay within the law. It happens to be the way I was raised.

  24. Rez

    By the way, at the risk of censure, I would like to point out that there have been many who believe the constitution is a goal and should be interpreted using today’s values — a little like situational ethics. Well since the amendment was put in during Dred Scott era for a specific problem, maybe the Supreme Court should just “re-interpret” it to view it in today’s context and not bother with the pesky efforts of amending the Constitution.

    Public Service Announcement–this was written somewhat tongue-in-cheek as a needle (to whom I am not saying) 🙂

  25. marinm

    hello :Why can’t we kill the incentive for these pregnant women from a dangerous border crossing before they kill themselves or their children?
    If any of you on the left have a heart at all you would agree that not just anyone ‘born’ in the US is automatically an ‘citizen’. That would deter these women from risking not only their life but their unborn child’s life from crossing the border for one reason and one reason only.
    Now, call me an a-hole for that rational, I dare you.

    I don’t disagree with your logic as broadcasting the benefit does have the potential to compel people to do something. You see it in anything; I work and make money or I goto school to get a better job. On the flipside I could argue, banks have money and no guns, I rob bank I make a lot of money with no downside immediate risk to me – so everyone should rob banks.

    The fault doesn’t lie in us if some pregnant woman crosses the border and dies in the desert or at a hospital if we removed the law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care without regard for payment. In the end that pregnant woman made a calculated risk assessment and decided that the risk was less the reward. Her choice.

    Applying your logic would mean that we can blame the liquor in the recent drunk driving accident versus the guy behind the wheel. Because, his aim wasn’t to kill that day just to get sloshed and drive home.

    I think stricter enforcement is needed of all aliens (illegal or resident). These are people that need to EARN citizenship [because they weren’t born here and given it by birthright] and PROVE that they are worth it. Now, I could argue a vastly more conservative bend to this (a la Heinlein) by saying that no person in the United States can become a citizen until they’ve served the public — military service.

    So, let’s say we change the 14th. What then becomes the benchmark? Only citizens can give birth to citizens? What about if two citizens give birth outside of the US? Or, what if a female citizen is raped by a non-citizen. Those are just examples off my non-lawyer head…

    Let’s get back to Heinlein. Do we really want a conversation like this? (Starship Troopers)

    Jean Rasczak: All right, let’s sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy. How the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven’t, therefore called citizens and civilians.
    [to a student]
    Jean Rasczak: You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
    Student: It’s a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
    Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.

    Now, I respect Heinlein but as a society are we ready to embrace those ideals? That there are two classes of people; civilians and citizens. That only citizens have the rights that we currently enjoy?

    Again, we have to tread carefully anytime we talk about tinkering with the Constitituion. I’d be the first to deport my own mom (I told her that this weekend, I don’t think I’m getting invited to Thanksgiving Dinner this year..) if she was undocumented but the 14th does have a valid reason for existing and currently is seen as a check against State Governments. We have to seriously think about any modifications we make to it as well as the ramifications for those mods…

    And, to my conservative brethern…. Why create new laws when we just need to get the feds to get off there butts and enforce existing ones??

  26. @Rez
    I don’t think that most people want to be here illegally.

    There are good people and bad people. That can be said of all races and nationalities. The examples I gave are people I know of first hand. They aren’t all Latino.

    And you and Marin are both right. America is a great magnet. It always has been. It seems that the Canadians don’t have a burning desire to come here but they have a very nice country themselves.

  27. marinm

    MH, have you seen how many Canadian’s are taking away jobs that our American singers and actors could be doin’? …then again I really like watching ‘Bones’ (c’mon who doesn’t like an attractive intelligent woman that carries a .45)

    Having visted Montreal it’s VERY pretty (but very, very French) but the idea that I can’t have a sidearm with me strikes it off my discretionary spending fund for vacations list.

  28. Born is born. There is very little wiggle room when something is that explicit.

    And I think I am the needlee…and I do believe that th Constitution has to be interpreted in today’s times. Obviously there weren’t telephones, TV, radio, computers, airplanes or automobiles when the Constitution was written.

    If people want to change the citizenship requirements from birth right to blood right, that is what will have to happen. However, they need to be weary of unintended consequences. When people start messing with amendments, especially ones as frequently used as the 14th, all sorts of things might come tumbling down.

    I also think that the 14th addressed more than Dred Scott.

  29. Rez

    Not sure I mentioned Latinos at all. It would be completely out of character for me.

    I don’t anyone thinks, “gee, I would like to be illegal today, I think I will go to America where I can do that.” I forget which philosopher that said something like “give any man a cloak of invisibility and he will steal.”

    If there is no downside with not complying with a law, then why bother with compliance if it is voluntary? It just gets in the way.

    1. @Rez, You didn’t mention them. I did.

  30. Rez

    Actually the citizenship clause was put into the 14th amendment precisely to overturn Dred Scott and give blacks the right of citizenship.

  31. Rez

    And to be clear, I hate amending the Constitution and see no reason now. Its beauty is that in 223 years, it has been amended only 27 times, two amendments were the same issue (prohibition).

  32. Emma

    I can’t believe I am saying this, but in the current and vitriolic political climate, I want both sides to keep their dirty mitts off of the Constitution right now. Leave it alone, enforce the laws, penalize employers of illegal immigrants verify citizenship. The healthcare “reform”, the financial “reform”—all of the grand, sweeping legislative initiatives make me say “Enough, already.”

    The Constitution is good enough as it is. I want the corrupt bastards on both sides to just leave it alone.

    There, I feel better now.

  33. Rez

    Emma, I wouldn’t hold back if I were you 🙂 tell us what you really think.

  34. marinm

    Hoozah Emma, Hoozah.

  35. @Rez

    And give blacks the right of citizenship. I agree. I was making the point that it went beyond Dred Scott.

    I don’t think they cared about Indians, although they should have.

    It was a pretty power packed amendment:

  36. @Emma, and I totally agree. Leave it alone!!!!

  37. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Lou Dobbs as the voice of reason. Black is white and white is black!

  38. Rez

    I never understood that about Indians. I am not sure that part of the reason was that Indians wanted to keep their own sovereignty but not sure.

  39. I think they were just not really even considered people. I don’t think the Indians were given a choice in 1866.

  40. Rez

    There are many things in our past that are disturbing. Indians are a subject that we should feel pain about. Not to say others don’t rank but many people do not think of Indians in the discussion. Andrew Jackson will NEVER be a hero for me.

  41. Totally agree Rez. There are a couple of other dirty rats also. Sherman was a real SOB also.

  42. Rez

    That is an understatement! But victors have a way of being portrayed well in history.

    Robert E. Lee probably did more for reunification than many of the northern gentlemen. Lincoln didn’t have a chance and Andrew Johnson was a southerner as well (and got impeached).

  43. I wasn’t even thinking about Sherman being an SOB with the south. He also had a real bad attitude with the Indians. I just saw something the other day about his treachery there too.

  44. RingDangDoo


    Born is born. There is very little wiggle room when something is that explicit.

    You handily exclude a qualifier in the amendment and its original intent.

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…..”

    A newborn is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” if your parents are here ILLEGALLY.

    It’s easy to make up your own meaning of what the Framers meant. Why not add a little more mental horsepower to what the Original Intent was?

  45. Elena

    How is wife and new addition? Are you getting any sleep, more importantly, is Momma getting any sleep? How is your first child adjusting to being a big brother?!

  46. @Ring-subject to the jurisdiction- are illegal immigrants subject to our laws? Yup. And they were then also.

    You are interpreting the law to accommodate your personal beliefs.

    Some diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

    And regardless of our personal interpretation…that and a quarter…the Supreme Court has upheld it so I doubt if anyone cares what our opinion is.

    Nice try. Not convinced.

  47. marinm

    Ring, the problem with that interpretation is that applying it would mean that the guy that killed the nun last week would not be ‘subject to the jurisdiction’. I don’t buy that as we need to make sure he pays for his crimes here in the Commonwealth. After that, the federales should deport him.

    I don’t want free passes given to anyone.

  48. We certainly want all persons within our borders subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Just seeing the crap diplomats get away with teaches me that.

    Earth spinning in the wrong direction here, I am going to semi agree with marin.

  49. marinm

    Come to the dark side, MH. We have better cookies.

  50. No NO …not the dark side!!!!! never!!!!!

Comments are closed.