1996 Republican Platform Supporting the Abolishment of Birthright Citizenship
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:17:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  1996 Republican Platform Supporting the Abolishment of Birthright Citizenship
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 1996 Republican Platform Supporting the Abolishment of Birthright Citizenship  (Read 406 times)
omar04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 574


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 31, 2023, 02:57:59 PM »

In 1996, the Republican party platform supported an amendment to end birthright citizenship:

"Illegal aliens should not receive public benefits other than emergency aid, and those who become parents while illegally in the United States should not be qualified to claim benefits for their offspring. Legal immigrants should depend for assistance on their sponsors, who are legally responsible for their financial well-being, not the American taxpayers. Just as we require "deadbeat dads" to provide for the children they bring into the world, we should require "deadbeat sponsors" to provide for the immigrants they bring into the country. We support a constitutional amendment or constitutionally-valid legislation declaring that children born in the United States of parents who are not legally present in the United States or who are not long-term residents are not automatically citizens."

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1996


Interestingly compared to the 2000 platform which had a lot of the same material, this amendment was not included. Bob Dole and Jack Kemp also both opposed it when asked by reporters. Some relevant tidbits in the party platform mention border security, Prop 187, making English the official language on a federal level, and a flag desecration amendment.

"Bill Clinton's immigration record does not match his rhetoric. While talking tough on illegal immigration, he has proposed a reduction in the number of border patrol agents authorized by the Republicans in Congress, has opposed the most successful border control program in decades (Operation Hold the Line in Texas), has opposed Proposition 187 in California which 60 percent of Californians supported, and has opposed Republican efforts to ensure that non-citizens do not take advantage of expensive welfare programs. Unlike Bill Clinton, we stand with the American people on immigration policy and will continue to reform and enforce our immigration laws to ensure that they reflect America's national interest."

"America's ethnic diversity within a shared national culture is one of our country's greatest strengths. While we benefit from our differences, we must also strengthen the ties that bind us to one another. Foremost among those is the flag. Its deliberate desecration is not "free speech," but an assault against our history and our hopes. We support a constitutional amendment that will restore to the people, through their elected representatives, their right to safeguard Old Glory. We condemn Bill Clinton's refusal, once again, to protect and preserve the most precious symbol of our Republic."

What contributed to this amendment getting on the party platform in 1996 but being removed in 2000? Also, have there been any similar proposals of note between 1996 and Trump stating he would end birthright citizenship by executive order in 2018?
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2023, 03:09:57 PM »

What contributed to this amendment getting on the party platform in 1996 but being removed in 2000?
In 1996, Pat Buchanan and Pete Wilson pushed for certain things to be in the platform while Dole stayed out of the platform-writing process. In 2000, Bush pushed for the removal of xenophobic language from the platform.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2023, 04:15:20 PM »

What contributed to this amendment getting on the party platform in 1996 but being removed in 2000?
In 1996, Pat Buchanan and Pete Wilson pushed for certain things to be in the platform while Dole stayed out of the platform-writing process. In 2000, Bush pushed for the removal of xenophobic language from the platform.

Its a balancing act Republican Presidents have been dealing with since Lincoln. Lincoln was against the nativist undercurrent that the GOP inherited from the Whigs, which was subsequently strengthen one large components of the American Party in the North, shifted over to the Republicans (including much of their office holders in Massachusetts for example.

The only times Republican Presidents have gone with the undercurrent, was in the 1920s, 1950s and in the 2010s. To some extent the 1880s as well, though this was the era when mouthing off about immigration could produce an 1884, or worse and 1874.
Logged
omar04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 574


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2023, 09:09:22 PM »

What contributed to this amendment getting on the party platform in 1996 but being removed in 2000?
In 1996, Pat Buchanan and Pete Wilson pushed for certain things to be in the platform while Dole stayed out of the platform-writing process. In 2000, Bush pushed for the removal of xenophobic language from the platform.

That makes a lot of sense. Were Buchanan and Wilson mostly ignored outside of the platform? Apparently Buchanan also managed to get a fairly controversial anti abortion amendment added. From what I can tell Dole strongly disliked Buchanan and the religious right in general and vice versa; It's kind of surprising to see how quickly things seemed to change from the 1986 amnesty to Buchanan give a speech 6 years later at Smuggler's Canyon and of course the "Culture Wars" speech at the national convention.

What contributed to this amendment getting on the party platform in 1996 but being removed in 2000?
In 1996, Pat Buchanan and Pete Wilson pushed for certain things to be in the platform while Dole stayed out of the platform-writing process. In 2000, Bush pushed for the removal of xenophobic language from the platform.

Its a balancing act Republican Presidents have been dealing with since Lincoln. Lincoln was against the nativist undercurrent that the GOP inherited from the Whigs, which was subsequently strengthen one large components of the American Party in the North, shifted over to the Republicans (including much of their office holders in Massachusetts for example.

The only times Republican Presidents have gone with the undercurrent, was in the 1920s, 1950s and in the 2010s. To some extent the 1880s as well, though this was the era when mouthing off about immigration could produce an 1884, or worse and 1874.

Would you say the 1920s had much of an influence on the 1950s in the same way Buchanan had on Trump? It's a trope at this point, but rhetorically and the issues they have overlap a lot. This endorsement of Buchanan by Gottfried particularly stands out to me https://www.hoover.org/research/my-guy
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2023, 10:01:52 PM »

Were Buchanan and Wilson mostly ignored outside of the platform?
Yes. Buchanan’s belief in “paleoconservatism” and his “culture war” speech in 1992 made Republicans scared to give him a platform again.

From what I can tell Dole strongly disliked Buchanan and the religious right in general and vice versa
The Republican establishment hated Buchanan for his primary challenge to then-incumbent President HW Bush and for his extreme nativism, protectionism, isolationism, and emphasis on religion.
Logged
Republican Party Stalwart
Stalwart_Grantist
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 365
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2023, 03:28:18 PM »

Very important to differentiate between "birthright citizenship" and "jus soli" (right to citizenship by being born within the territory of the state in question).
Logged
omar04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 574


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2023, 05:18:01 PM »

Very important to differentiate between "birthright citizenship" and "jus soli" (right to citizenship by being born within the territory of the state in question).

Fair enough, I should've been more specific in the title.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 11 queries.