About The times. (Gainesville, Ga.) 1972-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 6, 2018)
4A OPINION ®he £ntics gainesvilletimes.com Tuesday, November 6, 2018 Shannon Casas Editor in Chief | 770-718-3417 | scasas@gainesvilletimes.com Submit a letter: letters@gainesvilletimes.com The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Citizenship debate is an absurd distraction To take Ameri cans’ minds off his problems, President Trump offers another shiny object: birth right citizenship. The legal concept is jus soli, Latin for “the right of the soil.” In the United States — and more than 30 other countries, including Canada and most of Latin America — if you’re born there, you’re a citizen. This includes the children of illegal immigrants. In about two dozen countries — mainly in Asia, Europe and the Middle East — at least one parent must have legal status for a child born on their soil to get citizenship. Only two nations — India and Malta — are so strict that they deny citizenship to chil dren born on their soil unless at least one parent is a citizen. Thanks to the 14th Amend ment, the United States has it right. But what the U.S. Constitu tion giveth, Trump wants to taketh away. You ought to keep 10 things in mind: ■ When conser vatives parrot the talking point that the Supreme Court “has never ruled” on whether the citizen ship clause of the 14th Amendment applies to the children of undoc umented immigrants, they’re missing the point. There are reams of issues that the court has never decided because they’re ridiculous. Note that the court has also never ruled on unicorns. This could be one of those issues. ■ The underlying assump tion of those who want to deny citizenship to the children of the undocumented seems to be that U.S. citizenship is extremely valuable. But if they want to be stingy about who becomes a citizen, then why do we give the privilege away automatically to the native-born who did nothing to earn it? ■ Most illegal immigrants come from Mexico and Central America. So Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship should be seen as just another hate-filled strike against the nation’s 58 mil lion Latinos, many of whom get up and go to work everyday to help keep America great. ■ It’s simply false to say that “no other country” confers birth right citizenship. Besides, what the folks who say that likely mean is that few countries in Europe offer it. Who cares? The United States hasn’t followed Europe’s lead on much of anything since the Marshall Plan. When was the last time you heard of the French Dream? ■ Trump warns that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants have the “benefits” of citizenship. This implies that they are takers. But countless studies show that immigrants are just as likely as the U.S.-born to be productive members of society, if not more so. ■ Opponents of birthright citizenship also claim that the privilege acts as a “magnet” that draws refugees and migrants to this country. That’s nonsense. I’ve spoken to dozens of immigrants over the years, and I can tell you this much: There is a jobs mag net and a family reunification magnet. There is no citizenship magnet. ■ It’s pointless to dwell on the “intent” of the 14th Amendment. With the Constitution, intent is debatable — and not worth much. The 14th Amendment also guar antees “equal protection of the laws.” The fact those words were written to protect freed slaves doesn’t mean that they don’t also protect other groups from unfair treatment. ■ The 14 th Amendment confers U.S. citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Some insist illegal immigrants don’t qualify. That’s absurd. We’re talking about the child, not the parents. And if the government can deport or imprison you, then you’re subject to its jurisdiction. ■ Republicans like Trump don’t really care about citizen ship. They care about what citi zenship bestows: the right to vote. They know they’ve misbehaved by picking on Latinos, and they’re due a spanking at the ballot box that they’re desperately trying to avoid one way or another. That’s what this is all about. ■ Once upon a time, some Republicans made a play for Latino voters. Those days are over. The only voters that Trump is trying to rile up so they turn out on Tuesday are those whose American Dream is an America without brown people in it. Trump and other Republicans like to pick on Latinos. But this time, they picked the wrong spot to poke. Those voters care about chil dren and families. Defend them, and we will always remember. Attack them, and we will never forget. Ruben Navarrette writes for The Washington Post Writers Group. RUBEN NAVARRETTE ruben@ rubennavarrette.com LITERS Don’t control people to fit your moral standards In response to the urgings of Bill Morrison for people to vote against the “Brunch Bill” in Hall County, I offer the following rebuttal: Alcoholic beverages have been around since the dawn of civilization. Most people who imbibe have no problems with alcohol socially or other wise. There is a smaller subset of drinkers who do have problems, and there are laws such as those against impaired driving to provide more guidance for the clueless. Perhaps those visitors to whom you refer do not wish to attend a local church. Perhaps they are in Hall County for an event such as a wed ding, which includes a Sunday brunch, and they would like to have a mimosa (the drink not the tree) with their meal. Insofar as religion and alcohol — contrary to your world view, not all religions prohibit the consumption of alcohol. Many houses of worship have Saturday services or early services on Sun day mornings. There are also people who do not practice a religion at all. There is nothing wrong with “encouraging people to attend church” but there is something wrong with forbidding someone to take part in a legal activity simply because that activity doesn’t fit your moral standards. Why do you feel that you have the right to impose your “different ness,” i.e. your moral beliefs, on other people, especially those citizens of Hall County who do not believe the same things that you do and have the same right to freedom that you do? This is a democracy not a theocracy. Vote “yes” on the brunch bill. People who want to have a mimosa at brunch will be able to do so. Those who want to attend a church service from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. are still able to do what they wish, too. They just won’t be controlling that aspect of someone else’s life. Patti Lewis Buford Your government officials Georgia state government Gov. Nathan Deal, 203 State Capitol, Atlanta 30334; 404-656-1776; www.gov.georgia.gov Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, 240 State Capitol, Atlanta 30334, 404-656-5030; www.ltgov.ga.gov Secretary of State Brian Kemp, 214 State Capitol, Atlanta 30334, 404-656-2881, fax 404-656- 0513; www.sos.state.ga.us; Elections Division, 2 MLK, Jr. Drive SE, Suite 1104, West Tower, Atlanta 30334-1530, 404-656-2871, fax, 404- 651-9531 Attorney General Chris Carr, 40 Capitol Square SW, Atlanta 30303; 404-656-3300; law.ga.gov School Superintendent Richard Woods, 205 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive SE, Atlanta 30334; 404-656-2800; www.doe.k12.ga.us; askdoe@gadoe.org Labor Commissioner Mark Butler, 148 Andrew Young International Blvd. NE, Suite 642, Atlanta 30303-1751; 404-656-3045, 877-709-8185; www.dol.state.ga.us Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens, 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Suite 704, West Tower, Atlanta 30334; 404-656-2070; oci.georgia.gov; inscomm@mail.oci.state.ga.us Agriculture Commissioner Gary Black, 19 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Room 226, Atlanta 30334; 404-656-3600, 800-282-5852; agr.state.ga.us; info@agr.state.ga.us Public Service Commission, 244 Washington St. SW, Atlanta 30334-9052, 800-282-5813, gapsc@psc.state.ga. us, www.psc.state.ga.us. Chairman Chuck Eaton, District 3; Tim Echols, District 2; H. Doug Everett, District 1; Vice Chairman Lauren “Bubba” McDonald, District 4; Tricia Pridemore, District 5 (p pisCbyVJbsh.ft)stV/rtfceneGrajp USA BENSON I Washington Post Writers Group Parties’ extreme views on immigration don’t fit with general public opinion BY RAMESH PONNURU Bloomberg News President Donald Trump certainly knows how to direct attention where he wants it. When he raised the idea of issuing an executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, it became a top news story. Because of these remarks, and other provocative comments from members of his party about immigration, the change in Republican attitudes on the issue since George W. Bush’s pro-immigration presi dency is obvious to all. But there has been a major, if lower- profile, shift on the Democratic side as well. You can see it in the polls. In 2005, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found Democrats evenly divided about immigration, with 45 percent saying it strengthened the country and 44 percent saying it weakened it. By 2017, a huge 81 percent majority said it strengthened the country and only 16 percent dissented. As is often the case, the evolution of Democratic attitudes can also be seen by tracking Hillary Clinton’s comments over the years. When she first ran for president, from 2006 through 2008, she was careful to take a moderate tack. She opposed giving driver’s licenses to ille gal immigrants, came out for “tougher employer sanctions” to deter the hir ing of illegal immigrants, and toggled between calling them “illegal” and “undocumented” immigrants. During her second run, under pres sure from Bernie Sanders, she came out for driver’s licenses and apologized for using the term “illegal immigrants.” Talk of employer sanctions fell away. (Sanders himself, by the way, has also “evolved” on immigration.) Both conviction and strategy propelled the Democratic change. As conservative Democrats have become conservative Republicans, there were fewer and fewer voters and politicians inside their coalition inclined toward restraint. Many Democrats became convinced, as well, that a strong pro-immigration stand could help them win elections because it would appeal to Hispanics, a growing share of the electorate. The white working-class voters whom that stand might alienate were, in contrast, a shrinking share. At the same time, support for immi gration became more and more asso ciated with cherished values such as tolerance, openness and opposition to racism; support for restrictions on it, with intolerance, closed-mindedness and bigotry. The familiar dynamic of polar ization also took hold: The issue became a mark of distinction between the par ties, and a desire to crack down on illegal immigration and cut legal immigration became something Democrats linked with their partisan enemies. One way of reading the data is that Democrats have led public opinion toward greater support for immigration. Independents and Republicans, too, became more likely to regard it as a net plus for the country between 2005 and 2017. Their shift was, however, much smaller than the Democratic one. Democrats may, however, have moved too far for their own good. The public still shows some ambivalence. Only a minority of Americans wants an increase in immigration levels. While most Americans favor granting legal status to illegal immigrants who have put down roots and behaved well here, some members of that majority doubtless fear that a continuing refusal to enforce the law means that one amnesty will be followed by more. Amer icans are also open to combining an amnesty with some of the changes that Trump wants, such as ending the visa lot tery designed to increase diversity. Democrats also seem to be failing to make the favorable trade between the white working class and Hispanics that they had expected. For some voters, the new rhetoric, which emphasizes the harshness of deportation and downplays the necessity of enforcement, signals indifference to the rule of law and to their opinions. The abandonment of the old, more balanced approach has lent credibility to Trump’s claim that Demo crats favor “open borders.” The president has used the opening Democrats have given him to push for policies that are also out of step with public opinion. Most Americans do not approve of his job performance on immi gration. Even more disliked the separa tion of families at the border. Support for birthright citizenship seems to have risen in recent years. The debate earlier this year over extending legal status to people who came here illegally as minors showed the costs of this polarization. Trump demanded that a wish list of restric- tionist policies, including a cut in legal immigration, be included in any deal. Influential Democrats balked at cou pling an amnesty with any enforcement measures. The public seems to want immigration policies that are hard-headed without being hard-hearted. Neither of our politi cal parties, at the moment, seems inter ested in offering them. Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a senior editor at National Review, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and contributor to CBS News. She Stines EDITORIAL BOARD Founded Jan. 26,1947 345 Green St., Gainesville, GA 30501 gainesvilletimes.com General Manager Norman Baggs Editor in Chief Shannon Casas Community member Brent Hoffman
