August, 09 2010, 04:04pm EDT
GOP Would Rather Change the Constitution than Take Up Immigration Reform
Shameful Election Year Politics vs. Just Fixing the Dang Problem
WASHINGTON
The
latest flap over "birthright citizenship" has exposed a new low for
Republican politicians hell-bent on politicizing the immigration debate
and obstructing action on comprehensive immigration reform. Apparently,
GOP politicians would rather change the Constitution than just do their
job and fix the broken immigration laws--a sad commentary on the state
of the GOP, a transparent political exercise, and another nail in coffin
of Republican outreach to Latino voters.
According to Lynn Tramonte, Deputy Director of America's Voice: "Rather
than standing up and using the power they have as federal leaders to
enact real immigration reform, Republican senators and representatives
are clamoring for repeal of the 14th Amendment. This is offensive
election-year politics at their worst, and a shameless example of
throwing chum to a right-wing base that sees blood in the water over
immigration. The Republicans' proposal would punish unborn children for
the actions of their fathers, an act that is un-American and simply
beyond the pale."
Perhaps it is most unsettling that two of the senators leading the
charge for changing the Constitution have previously been voices of
reason when it comes to immigration reform. Senators John McCain (R-AZ)
and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), two of the most vocal champions for
immigration reform in the Republican Party in 2006 and 2007, are now
calling for hearings on the 14th Amendment and arguing that its language is outdated.
Undoubtedly, McCain's primary challenge from anti-immigrant zealot J.D.
Hayworth, and conservative criticism of Graham's role in a number of
battles, including recent Supreme Court nominations, influenced their
decision to embrace a position formerly espoused by only the most
radical anti-immigrant Members of Congress.
Former Bush Administration speechwriter Michael Gerson, writing in the Washington Post,
said that while Senators McCain and Graham "were once examples of
conscience on the issue of immigration. McCain, in a tough Senate
primary, has backed off his convictions. Graham has now abandoned
them. Their political fortunes may recover. Their reputations may
never fully recover."
"It's deeply disappointing to see Senators McCain and Graham, two former
champions for real immigration reform, reading from Tom Tancredo's
talking points and bringing credibility to one of the most extreme
positions of the anti-immigrant fringe movement. They know better than
anyone that getting three-fourths of state legislatures to repeal the
14th Amendment is simply not going to happen, and this is all just an
exercise in election-year politics at their worst," said Tramonte.
"But targeting babies who had no say in where they are born is a curious
political strategy, in addition to abhorrent public policy. One would
assume this is about throwing red meat to conservatives, but the
Republican base is already fired up this election, and amending the
Constitution to punish babies has not been high on the rank and file's
list of priorities-at least, not until now. By ginning up this issue,
in the context of Republican politicians' standard anti-immigrant
rhetoric and support for the Arizona 'papers, please' immigration law,
GOP politicians are giving Latino voters more reasons to show up in
November than ever," she said.
America's Voice -- Harnessing the power of American voices and American values to win common sense immigration reform. The mission of America's Voice is to realize the promise of workable and humane comprehensive immigration reform. Our goal is to build the public support and create the political momentum for reforms that will transform a dysfunctional immigration system that does not work into a regulatory system that does.
LATEST NEWS
Majority of Democrats, Independents Want Leaders to Fight GOP Attacks on AI Rules
"Voters are angry about Big Tech’s rogue AI telling teens to commit suicide and they want to see their congressional leaders fighting back," said one campaigner.
Dec 05, 2025
A poll published Friday revealed that a majority of Democratic and Independent US voters want congressional Democrats to fight GOP efforts to block states from passing laws regulating artificial intelligence—even as the technology evolves at a speed that has many experts concerned about serious and possibly existential consequences.
The Demand Progress poll of 2,257 likely voters conducted by Tavern Research found that voters across the political spectrum are wary of Big Tech's ability or willingness to ensure safe development of AI, with just 8% of Democratic respondents, 9% of Independents, and 18% of Republicans saying they trust companies to "adequately prioritize safety."
Respondents across the board—81% of Democrats and Independents and 74% of Republicans—also agreed that "large technology companies have too much influence over AI policy."
Although an earlier Republican attempt to slip a 10-year ban on state AI regulation into the massive One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump in July was shot down in the Senate, a bill introduced in September by Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-Wash.) would impose a temporary moratorium on state laws regulating artificial intelligence.
So far, Trump's most notably robust regulation of artificial intelligence has been his executive order aimed at preventing "woke AI." His other AI-related edicts have rolled back regulations, including some meager steps taken under former President Joe Biden to bolster safety.
Last month, Trump signed a directive launching the Genesis Mission, "a new national effort to use artificial intelligence to transform how scientific research is conducted and accelerate the speed of scientific discovery"—even as critics warned that the administration's lax approach to regulation poses safety and structural risks.
As experts urge a more measured approach or even a pause to AI development, 56% of Democratic and 62% of Independent respondents to the new poll want Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to work to block Republicans’ policy to prevent states from regulating AI.
Additionally, 61% of Democratic voters and 68% of Independents said they would be less likely to support a Democratic member of Congress who backed a bill to prevent states from regulating AI. Just 15% of Democrats and 14% of Independents said that they would be more likely to support lawmakers who approve such legislation.
On Monday, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries avoided taking a stance on the issue, saying that it “hasn't been brought to the leadership level yet.”This isn't enough. Our poll found that voters want to see their congressional leaders fighting back against AI deregulation.
[image or embed]
— Demand Progress (@demandprogress.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 6:53 AM
On Monday, Jeffries avoided taking a stance on the Republican effort to ban AI guardrails, arguing that it hasn't yet reached the leadership level. Critics urged him to speak out against the legislation.
“Democratic and Independent voters overwhelmingly want to see Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer fighting Donald Trump and Big Tech’s attempt to ban states from enacting AI safeguards, not back down and compromise,” Demand Progress policy director Emily Peterson-Cassin said in a statement Friday.
“It’s not enough for Leader Jeffries to say that the issue hasn’t been brought to him yet," she added. "Voters are angry about Big Tech’s rogue AI telling teens to commit suicide and they want to see their congressional leaders fighting back.”
Opponents of a more cautious approach to AI development argue that the United States cannot afford to fall behind competitors including China in the rush to achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical advanced AI that can understand, learn, and apply knowledge of any subject as well as or better than a typical human.
The race to AGI and development of AI systems in general is fraught with perils ranging from cybercrime, consumer manipulation, erosion of democracy, and worsening inequality to what many experts warn is the distant but possible threat of uncontrollable AI wiping out humanity.
With so much uncertainty—and even danger—accompanying the unprecedented promise of AI, an increasingly aware public favors caution. Majorities of respondents to poll after poll say they want more, not less, AI regulation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'All of Them Constitute Murder,' Amnesty Says of Trump Boat Bombings
"Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
Dec 05, 2025
Human rights organization Amnesty International is cautioning critics of the Trump administration's boat-bombing spree against getting bogged down in the precise details of each individual strike if it means losing sight of the bigger picture.
Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, said on Friday that it would be a mistake to merely condemn the Trump administration for launching a double-tap strike aimed at killing shipwrecked survivors of an initial attack, because the entire campaign of bombing vessels based on the suspicion that they are carrying illegal narcotics is unlawful.
"All the strikes so far have been illegal under both domestic and international law," she said. "All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life. Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
Eviatar said that law enforcement organizations for decades have had the power to intercept suspected drug boats at sea without having to resort to mass killing.
“Intercepting purported drug boats is a law enforcement operation, subject to policing standards derived from international human rights law, which holds that all people have the rights to life and a fair trial, and only allows states to use lethal force when an imminent threat to life exists," she said. “A state intentionally killing someone outside those circumstances is committing an extrajudicial execution, a form of murder, no matter what crime the person is alleged to have committed."
The Trump administration's boat strikes have come under fresh legal scrutiny after the Washington Post revealed last week that the US military had launched a second strike during an operation on September 2 to kill two men who had survived an initial strike on their vessel.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, watched video of the September 2 double-tap attack during a classified briefing on Thursday, and he described the footage as "one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service."
Himes told reporters that the video showed the US military firing missiles at two men who had survived an initial attack on their vessel and who were floating in the water while clinging to debris.
“You have two individuals in clear distress, without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, [who] were killed by the United States,” he said.
The US so far has carried out 22 known strikes on purported drug boats, killing at least 87 people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Calls Grow for Impeachment of Hegseth for 'Murder,' Even as Jeffries Dumps Cold Water on the Idea
"Impeachment is how Congress must check an out-of-control official who abuses his power," said Win Without War.
Dec 05, 2025
A House Democrat has formally introduced articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his role in the extrajudicial execution of two survivors of one of President Donald Trump's Caribbean boat bombings.
Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) introduced articles of impeachment on Thursday against Hegseth for "murder" and "conspiracy to murder."
"He gave direct, unlawful orders to kill every single person on a civilian boat from Venezuela, violating the Defense Department’s Law of War Manual,” Thanedar said.
He also introduced an article for Hegseth's "mishandling of classified information, leaking war plans in a Signal chat which included sensitive operations details, including target systems and attack times," which "has put American lives at risk," referring to war plans about an airstrike in Yemen that were accidentally spilled to Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg earlier this year.
Investigations have been opened in both the House and Senate over the past week regarding the events of September 2, when 11 people were killed in a pair of airstrikes that would become the first of nearly two dozen so far.
The administration alleges that these attacks have been against "narcoterrorists" bringing drugs to the US, who are therefore lawful combatants, but has offered scant evidence. In total, at least 83 people have been killed across nearly two dozen strikes since September.
While the entire boat bombing campaign is almost certainly illegal regardless, the "double-tap" aspect of the September 2 bombing has drawn attention, as attacking those no longer in the fight is blatantly illegal under both international and US law.
The firestorm was ignited after the Washington Post and CNN both reported late last week that Hegseth had given direct orders to "kill them all" as survivors of the first bombing clung to life amid the boat's wreckage. Hegseth has denied these reports, but his account of events has shifted violently. After claiming at the time he watched the operation "live," he now says he was not in the room during the second bombing.
After initially denying that a second bombing took place at all, the White House has since shifted blame onto Adm. Frank "Mitch" Bradley, who testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday that Hegseth had not ordered the killing directly, according to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a staunch supporter of the bombing campaign.
The New York Times reported Wednesday that the second bombing was part of a “contingency plan” authorized by Hegseth, who approved the killing of survivors if they appeared to be radioing for help from other alleged cartel members, which would mean they still could theoretically pose a threat.
This was the defense Bradley used on Capitol Hill Thursday, a rationale that one source with direct knowledge of the briefing told CNN was “fucking insane."
Members of Congress were also shown a video of the attack, which House Intelligence Chairman, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) said was “one of the most troubling things” he'd ever seen. Cotton, meanwhile, said there was no evidence in the footage that a radio had even been used, further undercutting the White House’s rationale.
Despite the increasing number of Democrats who've accused Hegseth of authorizing a "war crime," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has neglected to push the issue of impeachment, saying earlier this week that it's almost impossible that articles would reach the House floor with a Republican majority.
"Republicans will never allow articles of impeachment to be brought to the floor of the House of Representatives, and we know that's the case," he said. "Donald Trump will order them not to do it."
But just five Republicans would need to join Democrats in order to force an impeachment vote to the floor, and some are reportedly dissatisfied with the White House's answers.
Sen. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, which recently launched an investigation into the strikes, said on Thursday that "members are very concerned" about the accuracy of the information being shared with Congress. Turner previously said that if Hegseth indeed ordered the execution of survivors, "that would be very serious, and I agree that that would be an illegal act.”
Even if Hegseth were impeached, his removal from office would be an even greater uphill battle in the Senate, where 20 Republicans would need to join every Democrat and vote to convict him.
But there has also been some sharp criticism from Republicans there. Some has come from longtime critics of the boat bombing campaign, like Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.). The libertarian senator said on Friday that Hegseth himself should be put under oath.
“I think if the public sees images of people clinging to boat debris and being blown up, I think that there is a chance that, finally, the public will get interested enough in this to stop this," Paul said. "And I think that Congress, if they had any kind of gumption at all, would not be allowing this administration to summarily execute people that are suspected of a crime.”
Earlier this week, Paul questioned Hegseth's ever-changing version of events: "Secretary Hegseth said he had no knowledge of this, and it did not happen. It was fake news. It didn’t happen. And then the next day, from the podium of the White House, they’re saying it did happen. Either he was lying to us on Sunday, or he’s incompetent.”
As The Hill reported on Friday, several other GOP senators, including those who usually defend Trump, have also expressed a queasiness about the strikes.
Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) said he is “not comfortable with the two blow” and called a missile attack on “defenseless survivors” in the water “unacceptable.” If the reports are accurate, he said, “someone needs to get out of Washington.”
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) called Hegseth's denial of the strike "bush league" and suggested the secretary had "undermine[d] [his] credibility."
Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Mike Rounds (R-SD) have each said that targeting survivors of the ship would be a violation of international law.
While Jeffries has not responded directly to Thanedar's impeachment articles, he'll also have to contend with rising pressure from the grassroots of the Democratic Party, which has begun to agitate for a formal vote.
On Thursday, the group Win Without War launched a campaign to send letters to every member of Congress demanding the impeachment of Hegseth. They noted that the senators who launched the Senate Armed Services investigation, Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-RI), "are demanding answers."
"But answers aren’t enough," the group said. "We knew Hegseth was unfit to serve during his nomination process, and every day since, he’s only proved us right. Impeachment is how Congress must check an out-of-control official who abuses his power, undermines the rule of law, and actively harms communities here and abroad."
So far, the effort, backed by several other progressive organizations—including Common Dreams—has sent nearly 18,000 letters to members of Congress. A similar effort has also been launched by the Democratic Coalition, a SuperPAC that describes itself as "one of the nation's largest grassroots progressive organizations."
"He must be impeached for these illegal killings," the group said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular