Jump to content

Hugh Hewit presses Bobby Jindal on Citizenship Clause of 14th Amendment


Recommended Posts

UCW33N9SmALr7JKOFdew8gxgHugh Hewitt You Tube:

Audio not the best.



CompleteTranscript & Audio




HH: Now Governor Jindal, let me ask you a tough one, then. Today, the networks are full of conversation about whether or not the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment ought to be repealed, the Constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. Would you support such an amendment?


BJ: Well, I think the reason you see this debate going on is because we’re not enforcing our laws today. The reality is you’ve got folks that are coming here, breaking our laws, they’re having children under various terms for, you know, the folks that, the children that are here, and it complicates, at least in this complicated debate. I think the solution is pretty simple. One, secure the borders. Secondly, no illegal, no unconstitutional amnesty orders, executive orders. Third, Hugh, here’s what I think a smart immigration policy looks like. I think people that come here should come legally, should learn English, adopt our values, roll up their sleeves and get to work when they come here. And I think if we do that, we can be the great melting pot again. What I really worry about is right now, the left is insistent we’ve got to have multiculturalism, they’re insisting we can’t insist people that want to come here want to be Americans. They want to insist on hyphenated Americans. Hugh, immigration without assimilation is invasion, and I think that’s why people are so worried. I think the most direct, the simplest answer to all of this, secure the border, stop people coming here illegally, and that eliminates the problem in the first place.


HH: But Governor, if I was actually at the debate stage, I would have interrupted you, and I would have said very simple question, though. Do you support an amendment to change the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, yes or no, Governor Jindal?


BJ: Hugh, my answer would be the simplest way to solve this problem is to secure the border. I think we can do that, we can do that in six months. That would be a lot easier than trying to amend the Constitution.


HH: And so is that a no, I don’t support it?


BJ: Yeah, the answer is secure the borders, we eliminate the problem. My worry is that, the political answer is oh, we’ll tell people we’ll amend the Constitution when the, at least in D.C., that’ll take much longer than simply getting this job done. What I worry about is that becomes an excuse to have open borders and amnesty. That becomes an excuse for inaction. Let’s solve the real problem. Secure the border.


HH: Well, but you see, the way I would answer that question, I think what you said, it’s not Hugh Hewitt’s opinion, I think translating Governor Bobby Jindal is, no, I don’t favor an amendment, an amendment takes forever, I’m not sure of the wisdom of it anyway, and in the meantime, the border is not secure. So no, I don’t favor an amendment. Let’s focus on that. But I think all of our candidates have trouble answering questions. And you are like one of the intellectuals among the Republican Party, and it’s very frustrating to voters when candidates just don’t say yes or no to yes or no answers.


BJ: Well, but I think this question is more complicated, because look, I don’t have strong views on the underlying concept. My bigger concern is, the reason I think this is a little more nuanced, is what I worry about is look, there are folks that may say they are for this because it’s a convenient excuse to avoid the real, I think the real issue, what really people are worried about is there are people who are coming illegally, they’re having children, and that’s leaving this complicated debate, or even there are people that are coming and overstaying their visas for the purpose to have children here so they can have citizenship status. And I know that’s happening in California where you are. And I think the real answer to that is if we really want to nip that problem in the bud, stop them from coming. It shouldn’t be as easy as it is. It shouldn’t be possible for people to come into our country illegally, and right now, it’s very easy for people to do that. So I think when people ask that question, the real root issue they’re trying to get at is why is it so easy for people to come here and have children when they shouldn’t be here in the first place.


HH: Well, I agree with that. That’s, your analysis is correct, but that does still leave hanging the question. The Supreme Court decided this in 1898 that people born in the United States are citizens, and that’s because of the 14th Amendment which passed in the Civil War. And I don’t think that will ever be changed, actually. I don’t think it’s possible to change that, but given the Constitutional amendment process. So isn’t it easiest just to say no, I don’t support, whether or not people want to bring it forward, I just won’t support it? Isn’t that easier to say and then move onto the analysis?


BJ: Well, I think there are other people that don’t support it, because ideologically, they oppose it. I guess my rationale is what I really want to do is solve the problem that people are worried about. And you know, in today’s political soundbytes, what I worry is, is that it’s easy to try to get, you know, in some debates, they try to get people to raise their hands. This is a presidential debate. It should be a discussion. And people should have the opportunity to offer analysis and good answers. And people can agree or disagree with them. I think we’ve got to get away from the silliness of the, and I hope this debate doesn’t do this, where people say all right, raise your hand if you think…


HH: Oh, you’ll not get that from me. I don’t do raise your hand questions. But I do know that we’re limited to an hour with six very competent people, and so you and I have just spent more time talking in eight minutes than you’ll probably get that night. It’s not really an ideal way to pick a president, but it’s the way we do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Immigration Is the Issue of the Age

By PATRICK J. BUCHANANAugust 18, 2015, 1:32 AM

“Trump’s immigration proposals are as dangerous as they are stunning,” railed amnesty activist Frank Sharry. “Trump … promises to rescind protections for Dreamers and deport them. He wants to redefine the constitutional definition of U.S. citizenship as codified by the 14th Amendment. He plans to impose a moratorium on legal immigration.”


While Sharry is a bit hysterical, he is not entirely wrong. For the six-page policy paper, to secure America’s border and send back aliens here illegally, released by Trump last weekend, is the toughest, most comprehensive, stunning immigration proposal of the election cycle.


The Trump folks were aided by people around Sen. Jeff Sessions who says Trump’s plan “reestablishes the principle that America’s immigration laws should serve the interests of its own citizens.” Scissors-32x32.pnghttp://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/immigration-is-the-issue-of-the-age/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1719027715
  • Create New...