Freshman U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has teamed up with U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) to fulfill a Tea Party dream: denying U.S. citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. (Right off the bat, let me say that I’m still amazed that Vitter has the nerve to propose laws of any sort, after the big “Family Values” supporter admitted to being a serial adulterer with a serious prostitute habit, who likes for his “ladies” to dress him in diapers. But hey, Louisianans have been known to re-elect some of the seediest politicians in American history, so I guess the rest of us just have to deal with it.)
OK, back to the story. In the past year, a growing chorus of Republicans, including our own Sue Myrick, have campaigned to do whatever it takes to deny U.S. citizenship to undocumented immigrants’ children. First, a regular bill was proposed to do away with “birthright citizenship,” but legal experts warned that the law wouldn’t fly because, you know, it directly flouted the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Then, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) proposed simply repealing the 14th amendment, but that didn’t work because most members of Congress didn’t want to be seen as anti-black (the 14th amendment, passed in 1866, was originally intended to protect the rights of former slaves, although its “birthright citizenship” clause has also been a cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy for over 140 years.)
Rand Paul and Diaper Dave’s proposed amendment would directly target the national “anchor baby” boogeyman by declaring, “a person born in the United States to illegal aliens does not automatically gain citizenship unless at least one parent is a legal citizen, legal immigrant, active member of the Armed Forces or a naturalized legal citizen.”
I’ve always found it intriguing, if not exasperating, that it’s usually the same conservatives who continually proclaim the sanctity of the Constitution who always want to change the country’s founding document when it suits their agenda (proposed amendments to ban same-sex marriage, for instance).
Sen. Paul said, in introducing the amendment, that “Citizenship is a privilege, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits.” Paul’s declaration makes me wonder where I stand. Since I have very little respect for the nation’s immigration laws, does that make me ineligible for U.S. citizenship? Come to think of it, Paul’s own Tea Partiers seem to have the least respect for American immigration policies, so where does that leave them? (Note: those last two questions were jokes. I know it was obvious to the vast majority of readers, but sometimes it’s a good idea to clarify things, in the interest of avoiding an e-mail tsunami from pinheads).
Amending the Constitution is a long, hard slog, as we supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s found out. Both houses of Congress must pass a proposed amendment with two-thirds majorities, and then the amendment must be ratified by three-quarters of the states (38 out of 50). Perhaps Paul and Diaper Dave are counting on the sour mood brought on by a sputtering economy to boost their amendment’s chances. Stay tuned.
This article appears in Jan 25-31, 2011.
Dear John,
Humorous pics I must admit, but a really bad Photoshop job. Even a rookie could spot that.
Should I be a part of your family if I break into your house? Should I be entitled to your belongings? Are they now mine too? How about you? Should you be obligated to provide for me if I crawled in through an open window?
We have a legal means to come here (which I went through personally). So before you thump your chest about racism or xenophobia, please know that your skin is much more pale than mine.
These people who come across the border scream “that it’s all about jobs.” Well if that’s the case, removing birthright citizenship would not change anything now would it? I mean, they can still seek jobs right? The truth is, which you conveniently avoided, is that they aren’t just working when they come here. They ARE having families, having babies, getting arrested, graduating school, and living their lives.
As far as the Constitution is concerned, do you think Congress ever considered those who might come here illegally when they drafted the 14th amendment? Slaves were brought here against their will, which is not the same as those who come here illegally. These are people who knowingly and admittedly come here against the known protocol, so why pretend to live under a rock and blur Constitutional rights with citizen’s rights?
Let me ask you something John, did I act stupidly by waiting my turn and doing it properly, when I could have done what these illegal immigrants do?
What label do you use when an “undocumented worker” is unemployed? Documents are earned, not exploited. If you need that explained even further, I can do it for you, in 5 different languages.
What you refer to as “birthright citizenship” actually involves TWO conditions of the 14th Amendment, the second qualifier being “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Hear the words of the Senator who actually authored the citizenship language of the 14th Amendment, Jacob M. Howard of Michigan:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”
Key words: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners (or) aliens.”
The “father of the 14th Amendment”, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, concurred: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
Since early in our history, xenophobes have been screaming that one group of people or another are going to destroy life as we know it. At various times it has been the Irish, the Chinese, the Hungarians, the Haitians,the Cubans, now Mexicans.
When the 14th amendment was written we didn’t have the draconian immigration laws that we have today.
I’d rather be a non-citizen, you’re freer that way.
I am not surprised that a Republican or is it a Tea Party member rather than focusing on fiscal matters (as they profess) have decided on arrival to Congress to first attack the babies of undocumented aliens… exposing their real family values.
First of all it is out right racist, fascist, unconstitutional, unamerican and just downright mean. Whether, babies born in this country came from women brought here against there free will as slaves and chattel, pre-civil war or if they arrived to work as housekeepers, farm workers, kitchen help and the like to gain sustenance post civil war; The 14th amendment plainly states if your born here your a citizen. Just like if I’m born in Texas guess what I’m a Texan.
Senators (who gave an oath to uphold the constitution) by presenting their bill would likely dismantle the 14th amendment clause that states ” nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty, or property, without due process of laws” or ” deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
Did we not have a great civil war to decide this question for all time in regard to African slaves or anyone else legal or not, Indian or not, as to their birth right; hence the adoption of the 14th Amendment to our sacred constitution in 1868.
Even with the Civil War, the 14th Amendment, & the Slaughter House Cases, it took over 100 years to gain some semblance of legal, economic, cultural, & political equality for descendent’s of African slaves after the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision.
Furthermore, since I am a scholar of history; There may be an argument made as to breaking of Article IX of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
So please Anti Latino Republican Party and the Anti Latino Tea Party bring it on here in Texas. Let’s have that argument about birth right babies with the American people and the world watching…
All politicians should vote the will of their constituency. The voters & taxpayers are well aware that when we elect someone they do not all of a sudden become smarter than everyone else in their district.
The politicians should gather information from Social Services to get the direct cost to the Taxpayers for Anchor Babies.It is a known fact that 66% of the babies born by Hispanics are to unwed mothers. A huge percentage of them obtain Social Services benefits and we all know where that money comes from, that is for sure.
Anchor Babies: Proof that two wrongs can make a right.