"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."—Dick the butcher

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Round up the non-white babies!

Refusing to support the Dream Act allows racism practiced by adults to be acted out upon children.  The latest Republican/right-wing idea is even more outrageous—taking it out on babies!

Truth, once again, is far stranger than fiction.

Prominent white Republican men have come out in favor of (1) holding hearings on amending the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, (2) repealing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, or (3) writing a state law which would deny federal citizenship.

I am not quite sure which, but then again, they have no idea what they are talking about either.

The 14th Amendment specifically provides “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…”

It also forbids states from denying anyone "life, liberty or property, without due process of law", and makes it illegal for them to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Mainstream Republicans no doubt seek to mollify fringe conservatives (can anyone tell the difference anymore?) by calling for hearings on what would be this outlandish and highly improbable action.  Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has discussed introducing a piece of legislation that would repeal the 14th Amendment.  That has about as much chance of happening as Khalil Gibran becoming the next governor of Arizona.  (Gibran, a Lebanese poet whose works were adopted by the 60’s counterculture, died in 1931.)

A bill like Graham is trumpeting would have to pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority in each house, and then be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states (most Constitutional amendments have taken this route), or by a state convention (has happened only once in history).  Perhaps Graham could precipitate a Constitutional Convention being called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States.  That Convention could then propose an amendment.  The amendment would then have to be sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures or conventions.  (has never happened in our history)

Nevertheless, Republican heavyweights like Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ [go figure]), the Senate's no. 2 Republican, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have begun calling for Congress to hold hearings on the idea.

In 2007 Graham lobbied for granting legal status to 12 million undocumented workers, and along with President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, led the failed immigration reform effort that would have given illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.  Graham and McCain have officially flip-flopped.  And about the only thing Bush 43 has uttered publicly since retiring to obscurity in Dallas is that he would torture people again (in reference to waterboarding) to save lives.  No word on whether he joins the ranks of “baby racist” like his former colleagues.

The House of Representatives nearly always outdoes the Senate when it comes to kooky extremism.  Lamar Smith’s (R-TX) Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 would deny children of illegal immigrants US citizenship through statute rather than a constitutional amendment.

Has this guy been living under a rock?  Or does he just like wasting taxpayer money by proposing laws that are clearly illegal?  Smith proves once again that most Republican Congressmen have failed eighth-grade civics class.  Can someone please send him a telegram informing him his “beloved” United States Constitution cannot be changed in that fashion?

Even worse, he has 93 co-sponsors on the bill!  That means that almost one-fourth of the entire body of the House of Representatives aren’t smart enough to get out of middle school.  And you wonder why the country has seemingly gone to the dogs?  White Republican men could not negotiate their way through a game of Pac Man.

Others supporting the baby-bashing movement include Rep. Nathan Deal, a Georgia Republican, who is in a runoff to be the party's candidate for governor; Kevin Craig, R-MO, and Gary McLeod (an obscure South Carolina Republican Christian conservative who is challenging Majority Whip Dem. James Clyburn).

Senate candidate Rand Paul (R-KY) said he supported stripping citizenship from children of the undocumented shortly after he won his primary.  He said other things too until the national Republican leadership told him to stuff it lest the populace really find out what his positions were.

Fred Thompson, the TV actor and short-lived candidate for the 2008 Republican nomination for President, spoke of repealing the 14th Amendment back in 2007.  And no such list would be complete without racist Tom Tancredo, son of Italian immigrants, Republican politician from Colorado, who is attempting a run for the governorship of that state by joining something called the American Constitution Party.  (yeah,…rrrright)

McCain has taken an increasingly hard-line position on every conceivable issue in politics, particularly immigration matters, as he faces conservative J.D. Hayworth in Arizona’s primary election later this month.

Unchallenged and unrivaled champion boneheads remain Arizona (where else would they be from?) politicians Russell Pearce and Andrew Thomas, who believe they can repeal the 14th Amendment by passing a state law in Arizona!

Pearce at least has an excuse—he was an idiot to begin with, an unthinking, thug cop who was second in command at the world renown (for all the wrong reasons) Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

Thomas is less fortunate.  He is running for the Republican nomination for Attorney General of the state of Arizona amidst a state investigation into his ethical behavior in prosecuting his political enemies, and a criminal investigation by the federal government in which he is a “subject” involving criminal allegations of abuse of power concerning his days as Maricopa County Attorney, and his unholy alliance with the “target” of that investigation, America’s worst and most embarrassing Sheriff, Joe Arpaio.

Thomas has said that if elected he plans to work with Sen. Pearce to write a “legally sound” bill aimed at denying automatic citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.  I am beginning to suspect that the real Andrew Thomas, the one who graduated from Harvard Law School, was abducted by aliens from Area 51, and whoever or whatever has taken over his body and is running for the chief law enforcement official for the State of Arizona, is not of this world.

And let’s not forget Tom Horne, who promised to support efforts to challenge a 112-year-old Supreme Court interpretation that all babies born on US soil are citizens, with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.  As superintendent of public instruction, Horne was instrumental in the adoption of a law banning the teaching of ethnic studies classes in Arizona's K-12 public schools signed by the governor in May.

The rationale for the ban was that such classes were somehow “racist”.  Horne is also running for the Republican nomination for Attorney General of the state of Arizona.  Jeez…..Is David Duke running for Arizona Attorney General too?

The Arizona politicians contend their proposed state baby-bashing bill would not violate the 14th Amendment because they would “write it right."   A reasonable person is left to conclude only that they are in denial, delusional, or both.  The 1868 Amendment to the Constitution and the Supreme Court case of US v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898) have been the law for almost 150 years. 

These people are all in law enforcement.  Why should they let the law get in their way?

Do you notice anything in common about all these people?  Why, yes…they are all white Republican men.

If I were a betting man, I wouldn’t bet on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution going anywhere anytime soon.  I also would not bet on the majority of these white Republican men regaining their sanity.

Instead of allowing them to join crazy Joe Arpaio in “cracking down on illegal immigrants”, the country would be much better served by setting up internment camps for white Republican men.  With profuse apologies to the States of Mississippi and Alabama, we set up the rest of the entire country but for those two states as “exclusion zones” where white Republican men could not reside.

We thank Mississippi and Alabama for their patriotic sacrifice, and rest easier at night knowing the nation is more secure than ever without this cadre of white Republican men constantly conspiring to violate the individual liberties and freedoms of the rest of the American people.

We even let ‘em have waterboarding back, but only on each other.  That’ll keep ’em busy.

7 comments:

  1. He never, ever mentioned stripping citizenship from anyone. He spoke of changing the law, going forward. Circumstances change, and laws change. We no longer need more population, most never wanted this many, which is why we went to zero birth rate increase internally, way back in the 70s.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Awesome!!! I commented on your FB post on this particular subject. I had a news article up about it a couple of days ago too.

    On another yet perhaps similar note. I have this sign on my windshield which says "Soy Mexicana Pull Me Over" and I have (at least face to face, because the stuff I have been called on the internet by "anonymous" is hateful and offensive) have gotten quite a lot of positive reactions. EXCEPT, and I have commented to my husband about this, from older white men!! Maybe just MAYBE, these are members of the same white guy Republican club you speak of.

    I'm beginning to notice they are everywhere. Sticking they're foot out to trip Mexican ladies while seemingly reading their conservative propagandist newspapers. Taking brown babies' candies while their mom's are not looking. I swear I thought I saw one try to push a stroller out into a busy intersection.

    There's some remarkable similarities!!!

    I'm wondering if these are not the same ol' R-white guys who will protect a fetus while screaming bloody murder but, kick the baby like a football once it is born. And, that would make flag burning illegal but would f up our constitution in a second. And, family values, we can't leave out 'family values.' A vague term with apparently shifting meanings for those belonging to the ol' R-white men club.

    Okay rant over. Sorry for the borderline potty mouth. "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hilarious. I couldn't agree with you more. I've been reading your blogs for a couple of weeks now and I have to say you have a keen ability to mix humor with some very serious subjects. You've inspired me to start a blog for my own ramblings. I've titled it nomore1070s.wordpress. I'd like you to comment on it if you don't mind. It's not yet finished and it's not nearly as articulate as yours. My knowledge of the law is limited to research and CNN. Regardless, I've tried to make it inspiring and accurate. I'd love to hear your opinion on some issues I discuss, particularly on HB2281. Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous, I concede you have half a point. There were some misleading headlines out there, all too common to journalism these days.

    Paul has never, to my knowledge, supported taking citizenship away from any citizens who became so by virtue of being born in this country. However, he certainly supports stripping the right to citizenship so guaranteed in the 14th Amendment and upheld for over a century by our Supreme Court of the United States. But to the extent that my statement in the post did not make this clear, I apologize and stand corrected.

    Kind of a Pyrrhic victory for though, don't you think? I feel like either position is right-wing extremism and just plain wrong, legally and morally.

    I'll grant you though that a call for retroactive application would be worse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joen, no doubt, I agree, that the people you have encountered are members of the club.

    As for the rest of your comment, I can only say…right on the money and LMAO!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. azcat83, Thanks for the compliment, and welcome to the club!

    I’ll make an effort to get over there and provide some feedback.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ anonymous. I do not see where the human population growth argument in anyway supports or fits into the argument in favor of repealing the 14th Amendment.
    Denying birthright citizenship would only serve to increase the illegal immigrant population. The changing of our constitution for the worse would certainly not deter Mexican people from illegally immigrating into our country and having children.
    First, the ZPG 1970’s movement was mostly a non-Hispanic white movement. Where despite a slowed growth in the U.S. population in whole there were still certain segments of the population which saw increased birthrates. e.g. the Hispanic population.
    Second, the Mexico of the 1970’s is certainly not the Mexico of today. Internal problems in both the U.S. and Mexico have exacerbated economic disparity between the classes in Mexico. In most of the country the middle class is virtually non-existent. In that sense you might be able to draw some parallels between the economic turmoil in Mexico in the late 1970’s. Not to mention the fact that Mexico has historically been a corrupt country.
    However, the Mexico of 2010 is in the midst of a narco-civil war which the U.S. through money laundering, black market sale of weapons, and its insatiable lust for illegal drugs has created. People used to vacation, buy real estate, and retire in Mexico. Mexican people from the poorer regions could migrate to the larger cities and resort towns and do better for themselves. That is just not the case today. Not to mention that some cities and towns are just not safe to live in any longer.
    As long Mexico continues to deteriorate human smugglers will continue to prosper, and illegal immigration will not stop.
    Third, your argument ignores cultural and religious differences. The people who immigrate here are the poorest of the poor, usually from the smaller towns and villages. Most of these people are very much still traditional Catholics and come from farm families. Whether it be in Mexico or the U.S. their religion and culture make it more likely that they will experience higher birthrates. Having children and large families is ingrained into the Mexican culture (especially in farm families) and traditional Catholicism.
    Whole research papers could be written on this subject. This is simply my meager attempt to exemplify that Mexican illegal immigration is a multi-faceted problem which needs to be addressed as such and that, even though it is very highly unlikely to happen, repealing the 14th Amendment would hardly do anything to solve the problem. Anyhoo, back to work.

    ReplyDelete