A growing number of GOP Senators are coming onboard the “14th Amendment Needs Review” Express:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told The Hill on Monday that Congress “ought to take a look at” changing the 14th Amendment, which gives the children of illegal immigrants a right to U.S. citizenship.
McConnell’s statement signals growing support within the GOP for the controversial idea, which has also recently been touted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
In an interview, McConnell said the 14th Amendment provision should be reconsidered in light of the country’s immigration problem.
McConnell stopped short of echoing Graham’s call for repeal of the amendment.
“I think we ought to take a look at it — hold hearings, listen to the experts on it,” McConnell said. “I haven’t made a final decision about it, but that’s something that we clearly need to look at. Regardless of how you feel about the various aspects of immigration reform, I don’t think anybody thinks that’s something they’re comfortable with.”
During an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Kyl said, “There is a constitutional provision in the 14th Amendment that has been interpreted to provide that, if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what. … And so the question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?”
Kyl added that he suggested to Graham that “we should hold some hearings and hear first from the constitutional experts to at least tell us what the state of the law on that proposition is.”
It is unclear when such hearings would occur. Democrats, who control the Senate, set the chamber’s hearing schedule.
Of course, no matter when/if it comes up review, rest-assured that the race card will be played with wild abandon by The Usual Suspects in this season of race-card playing on all issues, especially as it relates to illegal immigration.
That said, what are your thoughts on the amendment? Do you think it has been misinterpreted over the years? Does it need to be repealed? Does the amendment need … amending? I’m a bit torn. On the one hand, the amendment on its face looks pretty clear cut to me, not vague at all. But others have argued that the crafters of the amendment did not mean for it to be interpreted in the way that it has been since its been on the books – and they have a point.