Brave Republicans Attacking a Dangerous Target
Nothing rivals the unimaginable courage — the unblinking fearlessness — of Republican politicians when they set their sights on a new enemy.
Jobless workers whose unemployment benefits have expired, the bereaved mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, a terminally ill patient whose health insurance just got canceled by their HMO — a lesser person would cower and run from such a vicious opponent.
But for a Republican, cowardice is not an option. And just wait ‘til you see who Republicans are facing up to next. It’s enough to make you cringe and get butterflies just thinking about it. More frightening than a terminal cancer patient, more dangerous than Cindy Sheehan. Are you ready??? Republicans are about to march headlong into a brutal no-holds-barred confrontation with the children of illegal immigrants.
OOOOOOOOOHHHHH!!!!!!! Are you trembling yet?
The newest rightwing buzzword is — Anchor Babies. That’s the name for children born to those swarthy lowly peons who snuck into the country illegally. Republicans are gonna git ‘em!
But first, there’s a little speed bump — the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Far Right probably thinks the Constitution was written exclusively for the benefit of multi-millionaires who want to purchase Congressional elections, developers who want to pave over everything that doesn’t move, and gun manufacturers who want every man, woman and child to own an AK-47. Or two or three or twenty-seven.
The Fourteenth Amendment reads:
“All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
Apparently the Fourteenth Amendment has too many big words for state senator Russell Pearce (R—Inbred). He’s the architect of Arizona’s “Zee Papersss Pleasss” law, and the ringleader of Arizona’s new plan to get those filthy icky Anchor Babies out of here.
The popular southern expression “Thank God for Mississippi” will probably be replaced soon with “Thank God for Arizona.”
Labels: anchor babies, Arizona anchor babies, Russell Pearce
posted by Tom Harper @ 12:23 AM
26 Comments:
I'm glad I got the fuck out of AZ when I did (1982).
"Anchor Babies" is not a new right wing buzzword. It has been used for many, many years by many, many people to describe what illegal immigrants have done to our constitution. As much as I love our constitution, and abhor taking aim at innocent children, I do understand the total frustration of states overwhelmed with illegal immigrants.
Many illegals have taken advantage of our constitution by making the 14th amendment something it was not intended to be. I believe it was meant to encourage LEGAL immigration to our country and then provide citizenship, with all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, to the children of these legal immigrants.
I honestly do not believe this proposed law is the answer to the problem of illegals, but I do understand the frustration and feelings of hopelessness that government is NOT going to address the issue. Heck, maybe illegals aren't a problem at all. Maybe we should open our borders to everyone, everywhere.
Mr. Harper, all of your histrionics aside, I am happy to see that a progressive at least knows where to find a copy of the Constitution in which to quote it, on the rare cases when it actually supports their arguments. Well done, sir.
This is sooo freaking ridiculous...and true! Why am I not surprised?
It's not progressive trying to tear apart the constitution. The addled brains of the right are the ones trying to rewrite it to their liking.
They think only they are patriotic.
To T.Paine,I know your served our Country and for that we thank you.
Did you ask the guys fighting along side of you whether or not they were progressives. Do you think they were any less Patriotic than you. How Dare you suggest any one on the left is less loving of this Country. This is very much implied when you say shit like you did. I for one keep a copy of the Constitution on me for reference. This is the exact reason why I can't take you seriously. As of now your the one thing you can't accept. Your irrelevant.
Carlos: It's a nice state to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.
Kate: I agree that illegal immigration is a problem, and I have no idea what the solution is. Not everyone who's concerned about illegal immigration is a racist, but this issue makes a perfect cloak for racists to hide in. With all the millions of people who are clamoring against illegal immigrants, some are genuinely concerned about the issue, and some are racists who just don't have the cojones to come out and say it.
TP: Tim gave an excellent response to your comment.
Teeluck: Yup, ridiculous, true and not surprising.
Tim: The only important part of the Constitution is the second half of the Second Amendment :)
Tim, most of the guys I served with were either apolitical or tended towards conservative values as far as foreign policy and fiscal matters were concerned.
Of course there were always exceptions, and I praise any and all that put their butts on the line in service to our country, regardless of their politcal persuasion.
I also, while disagreeing with, can and do have respect for those on the left that have principled arguments that they can argue from a constitutional perspective. In fact, I have even been known to change my mind because of one such friend's past arguments of such a nature.
What I cannot take seriously is the progressives current spate of legislation that is contrary to the dictates of the constitution to which you keep nearby for reference, my friend.
Please tell me otherwise how things such as a right to abortion, restriction of personal firearms, mandatory requirements to purchase health insurance, and the forthcoming cap & tax legislation pass constitutional muster?
You are correct about one thing though; conservatives had indeed become irrelevant (myself included), but we are once again in ascension, as the left will soon see, sir.
Kate, as always, I appreciate your excellent even-handed comments and insights by the way.
When we argued on illegal immigration years ago, I posted this subject, not from Wiki but from another source when “Jenn of the Jungle” suggested we just round up the Mexicans and kick them out. It is another sad part of this county’s racial history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation
As I’ve posted before, the 14th Amendment is probably the biggest separator between liberal and conservative philosophies. Conservative courts have tried to restrict it (among others the famous “Pleussy”) while Liberal courts have followed it (“Brown”, “Loving”), conservatives say that was judicial radicalism, but I also can’t find one that will admit Pleussy was a good decision either.
The Good and the Bad thing about the Constitution is the way it was written. Kate the 14th was written to integrate free slaves back into society and settling once and for all what their rights would be. Doesn’t say that does it? So why couldn’t it apply to the Native Americans? Interracial Marriage or a host of other issues when Conservatives try to pass laws that restrict the rights of one group of legally born Americans against the others, Hell they are letting corporations twist it to make themselves persons and therefore protected by the 14th Amendment. But they don’t think it applies to Gay marriage.
The 14th Amendment was passed during the Industrial age when we needed all the labor we could get and “welcomed” (being totally “welcome” is another subject) Immigrants to fill those positions made by the growing market. Their legitimacy was never a question especially since they were all coming from white Europe.
My only warning is, you mess with that language of what you can do to all persons born in this country, and you open a whole can of legal worms as what else you can do and bring rationalizations like Pleussy back again.
Erik
Cool maybe it can be retroactive and we can rid ourselves of Michele Malkin. See there is a silver lining after all isn't there? This is the new boogeyman for them. I say it will go the same way prop 187 did here in CA. It will make for a bluer and bluer AZ. I saw something the other day saying that for the first time this year, white kids were not being born at the same rate as everyone else. By 2050 this will be a minority majority country.
Erik, you do indeed make some good points, sir, and your cautionary stance is indeed one of which to take heed.
I'm not surprised, it is an election year. And if senior citizens didn't vote in large blocs, I'm sure the GOP would be taking aim at them and their Social Security if it could win them an election.
Erik: Good ol' Jenn of the Jungle. I still look at her site every few days, just to get a glimpse at what the Far Right is saying.
Interesting link. That's another chapter of American history that doesn't get much mention in history textbooks.
Jess: Michele Malkin, LOL. Her column appears once a week in our local paper, but last Friday there was a notice saying "Michele Malkin is on vacation." WTF? "Vacation" from what? Maybe for a whole week she won't utter the words Moonbat, Obamacare, government takeover, "the hatred on the Left," and then she'll be all rested and rejuvenated.
I remember Prop 187. Pete Wilson never met a wedge issue he didn't love.
Lew: Thank God senior citizens vote in huge numbers.
Kate wrote: "Anchor Babies" is not a new right wing buzzword. It has been used for many, many years by many, many people to describe what illegal immigrants have done to our constitution."
For every illegal immigrant Kate claims has done something (what, pray tell?) to our Constitution, there is an illegal employer all too willing to exploit cheap, desperate labor. Even in the rare instances when those illegal employers have wound up in court, there has never been any thought given to deporting them or their children. You might think about that when you're coming down with the vapors about illegal immigrants.
Tom, this is a potentially explosive issue for many reasons, including what right-wing Republicans might do to the Constitution.
The same determination to honor the rule of law that causes me to condemn George W. Bush's wink-and-nod attitude about illegal immigration, grounded as it was in notions of wanting employers to have plenty of cheap, easily exploited labor, also causes me to say no way will we deport so-called anchor babies or their parents, at least not the parents of those under 18. The law is the law.
It's been said Bush welcomed a large influx of Mexicans in part because he knows and likes Mexicans, partly because he felt they are hard-working family people and would help offset the trend among young Americans to marry late or not marry at all, just pair up, have kids and live together. Bush reportedly also believed they would in time help build a Republican majority. (I think that one is up there with Mission Accomplished.)
We have a difficult legal, national security, economic and very human problem in this area. The most practical, workable and humane solution won't fully satisfy anyone, but we must do it. That's the so-called pathway to citizenship outlined by McCain, Obama and others.
Republicans will demagogue the issue in typical fashion, trying desperately for political advantage. Out of public view they can rest easy. The real longterm solution to illegal immigration from the south is: (A) a Mexican economy capable of providing enough decent jobs that Mexicans feel no need to move north; or (B) a U.S. economy so dominated by big corporations, so gutted and devoid of decent jobs, that Americans are moving south in search of a better future for themselves and their children.
The reason Republicans can rest easy is that if they can just elect another Reagan- or Bush-type president for eight years, "B" is inevitable. Americans will be working so cheap and forced to compete so hard for what few decent jobs remain,few Mexicans will want to come here. After all, they can be maquiladoras close to home. And with that, the illegal immigration problem will be solved.
T. Paine wrote: ". . . conservatives had indeed become irrelevant . . . but we are once again in ascension . . ."
Something in common there with bad pennies and locust plagues.
I've also said this many times before:
As a American Worker I am more concerned with Outsourcing then Illegal Immigration.
In his campaign, Obama said he would tax those companies that outsource, let's hope he will.
Erik
S.W. Andersdon,
What, pray tell, have illegals done to our constitution? "Anchor Babies".
You may dislike the term, but it is an accurate term for illegals who pop out a child for the sole purpose of citizenship, while many of the parents have no intention of ever seeking legal immigration status and becoming citizens.
Many do not want to pledge their allegience to this country. They want what we have to offer, without any of the responsibilities that go along with citizenship.
I am most certainly NOT excusing the employers who seek out illegals. I've stated that if employers of illegals were hit where it hurts (massive fines) there may be more people coming to this country as legal immigrants and fewer illegals.
FYI I may not state my thoughts as eloquently as you, but I do not come down with the vapors about illegal immigrants, or anything else.
Anderson, your diagnosis of the problem and comments were dead on accurate up until you got to the point of explaining your option (B).
Seems to me that the rising tide that Kennedy spoke of did indeed raise all boats when Reagan restored what was left of the economy after Carter decimated it in inflationary and unemployment measures.
As for Bush, I really have no intention of wasting my time in defense of any of his economic policies.
SW: You're right about illegal immigration being an explosive issue. I really don't have any strong opinions about this whole issue, or what the solutions are. But this linked article really pissed me off. Two of my (many) pet peeves are: racists who won't admit they're racists so they wrap themselves up in a burning issue like illegal immigration where they can rant and vent and spew all they want; and Republican demagogues going after the most vulnerable people in the country just to use them as scapegoats.
Your Scenario B sounds like exactly where we're heading, regardless of who's in control of Congress and the White House. That's one way to solve the illegal immigration problem.
Conservatives, bad pennies and locust plagues -- three of a kind :)
Erik: I couldn't agree more. Outsourcing has definitely done more damage to our economy than all the illegal immigrants in the world. I too hope Obama will live up to that campaign promise and start taxing companies that outsource.
Tom I wrote a series of post about the ignored and violated amendments to our constitution when the Shrub was in office. Seems that republicans haven't seen an amemdment they couldn't avoid.
Great minds, Tom. :-)
Have you ever noticed how white folk give birth, but brown folk "pop out babies"? :-(
Kate, I won't dispute your contention about some Mexican immigrants "popping out" babies so they can stay in the U.S., but it's far from the whole story.
There is also this, from a 2008 article:
"According to data from the Department of Defense, more than 65,000 immigrants (non-US citizens and naturalized citizens) were serving on active duty in the US Armed Forces as of February 2008. Since September 2001, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has naturalized more than 37,250 foreign-born members of the US Armed Forces and granted posthumous citizenship to 111 service members."
Many of those immigrants are Mexicans who have joined our armed forces not just to make money to support themselves and their families, but as a path to citizenship. And keep in mind, the above numbers are from wartime, when joining the military carries risk of losing life or limb.
The same site points out that nine out of 10 legal resident workers in '08 were Mexican.
My point is that this is not a simple, one-dimensional matter. Impressions gained from Fox News, six-second sound bites from politicians demagoguing the issue and bigoted individuals shouting catch phrases like "anchor babies" and waving placards, can all be faulty and misleading.
We need less angry shouting and name calling, and more rational thought and discussion, if we're ever to come up with a decent, workable solution.
The states are hardly overwhelmed with illegal immigrants. These kids aren't illegal, BTW, so let's not forget that tiny little factoid, 'k?
First of all I didn't say anything about brown skinned people popping out babies. Not all illegals are brown skinned, or Mexicans. Secondly, if the only reason you come to this country is to make sure your children are citizens, then yes, you pop out babies, to serve your own purposes.
I agree, we do not need angry shouting, and name calling. Why does no one have a solution? What do other countries do that do not want illegals in their countries. I understand Great Britain has many illegals, as well.
I applaud those folks that come here and serve in our armed forces, particulary during times of conflict since we don't seem to follow the consitution and declare actual "war" anymore.
Those are folks that are deserving of citizenship, and indeed I served with many good men that came to America in just such a manner so that they could obtain their citizenship.
That being said, it is profoundly sad that people enter here illegaly with the intention of using our laws for their own ends by having a baby here and thus an American citizen.
Such parents as these violated our laws and they should have to suffer the consequences of their actions and be forced to re-enter the country legally. (I realize having consequences for one's actions is rather antiquated and passe' these days, but I think by returning to that standard for everyone, espcially politicians of all political stripes would help things immensely.)
Of course, if those folks that chose to consciously enter our nation illegaly so as to have an American citizen baby are forced to leave the country, one would assume they would take charge of their infant with them. The infant could then return as a fully-priviledged US citizen when they were no longer a minor, or when their parents were able to LEGALLY enter the country.
The bottom line is, as Anderson and Kate both put it so well in the past, is that you place draconian fines on those folks that knowingly hire and/or exploit illegal immigrants. The jobs will dry up for these exploited people accordingly and they will not come here illegally anymore.
Kate wrote: ". . .if the only reason you come to this country is to make sure your children are citizens, then yes, you pop out babies, to serve your own purposes."
I don't have proof, I admit, but life experience and some understanding of human nature make that seem very unlikely. I think the numbers would be few if any.
"Why does no one have a solution?"
In large part because so many angry know-nothings are so ready to get out, shout and raise hell about any proposals put forward that they don't agree with 100 percent. Think teabaggers at town hall meetings. They're mad as hell and they're not going to be persuaded by facts or put up with reasonable ideas any more.
If so many are so ready to get angry and raise hell at the first mention of a plan they don't instantly like, senators, representatives and presidents consider it too hot to handle. So the problem slides, festers, gets bigger and harder to deal with.
In our democracy, it goes back to the people. Sometimes, it goes back to the worst people of all to be deciding things by short-circuiting the system: those who show up boiling with resentment, shouting racial slurs and waving ugly placards.
Post a Comment
<< Home