Hey look, John McCain, the cosponsor of the hated McCain-Kennedy immigration bill just won the New Hampshire primary. And Mike Huckabee, who won Iowa and is nominally the national frontrunner, has at best a pretty mushy immigration record.
It may just be that like last year and in the special elections early this year, the anti-immigration vote is confined to the limits of Fox News?
The sound you hear is Republican consultants rushing to find a wedge issue before November.
Oliver, why do you conflate legal immigrants with illegal ones?
Most of the people I know who are most worked up about illegal aliens get most worked up on behalf of the legal ones. They obey the laws, follow the rules, jump through the hoops, and in general do everything right — and then watch as those who cut in line ahead of them reap the very same rewards (or more) that they’ve struggled so hard for.
The way the current system works, it simply doesn’t make economic sense to come here legally. The risks are low and the penalties relatively light. It’s a spit in the face of those who are doing it right.
We not only have every legal right to control who comes here, and when, and how, but the moral duty to do so fairly. McCain’s bill (and it was one of several reasons I refused to vote for him — McCain/Feingold and the Group of 14 Compromise were two others) would have rewarded those who broke our laws by granting them the same privileges as those who didn’t — and, in some circumstances, faster than the legal aliens.
I, personally, feel a touch of envy for naturalized Americans. They will have an appreciation for their citizenship that I never will. They had to work hard for what I enjoy by accident of birth.
On behalf of them, in recognition of their struggles and determination to do things the right way, I speak out against the illegal aliens who want to just help themselves to what the legal ones worked so hard for.
And to conflate the two groups, especially for a cheap political point like you did, is disgraceful.
J.
“It may just be that like last year and in the special elections early this year, the anti-immigration vote is confined to the limits of Fox News?”
Don’t forget the Lou Dobbs wing of CNN – which is metastasizing to all of CNN…
“Oliver, why do you conflate legal immigrants with illegal ones?”
Because anti-immigration activists do.
Remember that right-winger who complained about people speaking Spanish at the debate? Or Bill O’Reilly saying we were trying to destroy the White Christian power structure in the States? The Minutemen who guard the border recruit from Stormwatch (Strowmfront?), which is a white supremest organization.
This has nothing to do with legal or illegal, it has everything to do with race.
“Oliver, why do you conflate legal immigrants with illegal ones?”
Umm, we’re the not the ones who seem to think they all look the same.
August: “Umm, we’re the not the ones who seem to think they all look the same.”
I don’t think all people who complain about illegal immigration are racist, but I think most of the loud ones are. The evidence is just too much to ignore.
I see the usual gang of clowns won’t answer the questions.
The proposed laws and enforcement of existing laws are all aimed at punishing ILLEGAL aliens, and have ZERO affect on LEGAL ones. LEGAL aliens have no need for “a new path to citizenship,” or “a way to become properly documented,” or “protection from exploitation by unscrupulous employers” — they already have all that.
I repeat: to simply refer to those who demand enforcement of existing laws and new measures to crack down on illegal aliens and those who assist/exploit them as “anti-immigrant” is an insult to those who are here legally. It’s pretty much the same “they all look alike” bullshit that Pollak cites.
I wonder if it’s the same sort of attitude that seems to infect liberals when it comes to guns. There are LEGAL and ILLEGAL gun owners, but when it comes down to it they most often lump them all together for the purposes of laws. Because some break the laws, all get treated the same — even the honest ones.
And I thought you were the party of nuances, who didn’t reduce everything to black/white but saw shades of gray, the non-absolutists. What the hell happened?
J.
The proposed laws and enforcement of existing laws are all aimed at punishing ILLEGAL aliens, and have ZERO affect on LEGAL ones.
Except for the proposals, such as those coming right out of the mouths of GOP candidates and leading Republican pundits, that American citizens born in America be stripped of their citizenship. Thanks for playing.
Except for the proposals, such as those coming right out of the mouths of GOP candidates and leading Republican pundits, that American citizens born in America be stripped of their citizenship. Thanks for playing.
BZZZZZT! I’m sorry, that’s an incorrect answer.
What’s actually been proposed (and has rightfully gone nowhere) is to change how the US grants citizenship. Instead of granting citizenship upon birth, the proposal would require at least one of the parents to already be a citizen (much like the policy in most of Europe). The intent is not to “strip” citizenship from existing “American citizens born in America”.
But I have to admit that your wording, despite being false, sounds much more dramatic and makes ILLEGAL immigration foes sound much more dastardly than they actually are.
Of course, if you have a link or source that shows something different “coming right out of the mouths of GOP candidates and leading Republican pundits”, I’d be happy to look at it.
Remember that right-winger who complained about people speaking Spanish at the debate? Or Bill O’Reilly saying we were trying to destroy the White Christian power structure in the States? The Minutemen who guard the border recruit from Stormwatch (Strowmfront?), which is a white supremest organization.
Don’t forget to include black activist Ted Hayes and the ‘Crispus Attucks Brigade’ and the ‘American Black Citizens Opposed to Illegal Immigration Invasion’ who joined the Minutemen at the border.
“This has nothing to do with legal or illegal, it has everything to do with race.”
So you’re saying that all blacks hate Latinos just like all whites do?
But I have to admit that your wording, despite being false, sounds much more dramatic and makes ILLEGAL immigration foes sound much more dastardly than they actually are.
And I have to admit your desperation being so intense that you’re reduced to trying to find a semantic argument to suggest that removing the right of all people born in America to be American citizens isn’t removing their citizenship really, really sad. Is that really all you have?
So you’re saying that all blacks hate Latinos just like all whites do?
And OMG Robert Byrd was in the Klan!!!11!! You are adorable.
Sheesh… of all the anti-illegal-alien legislation and proposals put forth, the “birthright citizenship” is the only one you can cite?
And the proposals I’ve seen only require that ONE of a child’s parents be within the US legally — not even a citizen. Again, it does not affect legal aliens.
The target of this move is “anchor babies” — sure, Mom’s an illegal alien, but we can’t kick her out because the baby’s an American!
Google up “Elvira Arellano” for an example of why this just might be a good idea. Or check out her entry on Wikipedia — it’s quite educational.
And/or give a compelling explanation why restricting birthright citizenship to children who have at least one parent here in the US legally — citizen or not — is such a heinous crime.
Another attempt to smear legal immigrants by conflating them with illegal immigrants: Fail. Again.
Another attempt to portray people who simply want the laws enforced, fairly and evenly, as racist, xenophobic, troglodytes: Fail. Again.
But thank you for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts, including a case of Turtle Wax and a year’s supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco Treat.
J.
And/or give a compelling explanation why restricting birthright citizenship to children who have at least one parent here in the US legally — citizen or not — is such a heinous crime.
It’s not. It’s just unconstitutional. I’m not a big supporter of amending the Constitution to remove inherent rights from people born in this country just because a few of you are really scared to death of what percentage of the U.S. population speaks Spanish.
And I have to admit your desperation being so intense that you’re reduced to trying to find a semantic argument to suggest that removing the right of all people born in America to be American citizens isn’t removing their citizenship really, really sad. Is that really all you have?
How can something be removed if it already hasn’t been granted? From what I understand, the legislation wouldn’t apply to anybody that is already a citizen. In other words, it would not be retroactive. So your claim that “American citizens born in America” would be “stripped of their citizenship” is bogus.
How can something be removed if it already hasn’t been granted?
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. It’s been granted to the people of the United States as an inherent right for 140 years now. Where’ve you been?
And OMG Robert Byrd was in the Klan!!!11!! You are adorable.
Tell it to CS. He’s the one saying that this issue “has everything to do with race” and helpfully pointed out several examples of “white” opponents to ILLEGAL immigration.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. It’s been granted to the people of the United States as an inherent right for 140 years now. Where’ve you been?
Thanks for the history lesson. And the portion of the 14th amendment under debate is in section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”.
How does citing this address Jay’s question?
Mittens is intending to wedge this issue between him and any of his repulican rivals.
http://flyingator.blogspot.com
Mittens is intending to wedge this issue between him and any of his repulican rivals.
http://flyingator.blogspot.com
Mittens is intending to wedge this issue between him and any of his repulican rivals.
http://flyingator.blogspot.com
How does citing this address Jay’s question?
Ummm…. all persons born in the United States are citizens. You want to remove that right. See, the Constitution is a list of rights… in fact, that’s even sort of what they first called it. What is so hard here?
Here’s my fantasy language:
(Italics indicate the added language)
Nine simple words. They will not affect a single living person (especially if one goes by the “living person” definition of Roe V. Wade). Not one person will lose their citizenship over it. Instead, illegal aliens will have one less incentive to come to this country; their children will not gain citizenship as a benefit of their parents’ crimes.
Nor will the children be penalized; they will simply be returned to their nation of origin, along with their parents.
Simple, direct, uncomplicated, and fair.
J.
…………so, yes. You would like to amend the Constitution to strip rights away currently granted people by it. How does removing the right of citizenship from certain people born in the U.S. not “punish” them?
“I see the usual gang of clowns won’t answer the questions.”
Fuck you, you lying sub-human piece of shit. We’ve answered the questions.
Attacks against the Spanish language, freaking out that white people will no longer be the majority, and using white supremest organizations as recruiting grounds has zero to do with illegal immigration. It has everything to do with racism. The fact that you can’t see that, well, that implies you are racist.
If you think these people will be happy stopping illegal immigration, you are fucking naive.
According to Roe V. Wade, August, I’m not affecting a single person. It’s only those born AFTER the Amendment is passed are affected, and in the eyes of the law they are not persons and have no rights as such. I’m not taking anything away from them, simply not granting them something.
But enough of the cutesy games. What is the rationale for preserving “birthright citizenship” for the children of illegal aliens? I have given you a rationale for stopping it — it removes one of the most powerful incentives for illegal aliens to come here.
I repeat: remember Elvira Arellano? Entered the US illegally in 1997, was arrested and deported, returned to the US within days. Stole a Social Security number and worked as a cleaner in very sensitive areas of O’Hare Airport. Was caught up in a post-9/11 sweep, convicted of illegal entry (again) and Social Security fraud. Blew off her sentencing hearing, sought “sanctuary” in a church, refused to be deported.
Her biggest weapon? Her son, Saul, born in the US. It would be “unfair” to separate the two, and “unfair” to punish the boy by sending him to Mexico. So this thrice-convicted and utterly unrepentant criminal argued that she DESERVES to stay in the US despite her crimes.
After she was deported, she demanded the “right” to return to the US. And not just as any old immigrant, she demanded to be appointed and recognized as an “ambassador of peace and justice.” She also blamed the US, saying it had broken the law before she did by allowing her to sneak across the border and work illegally with that stolen Social Security number.
Yes, it’s not the best practice to argue by anecdote. But the Arellano case has so many elements that are so common in the argument — illegal border crossing, identity theft, and a child whose birthright citizenship is being used to excuse all the mother’s offenses. She is trying to use him as an “anchor baby,” hiding behind him and his citizenship.
No, I would not strip Saul Arellano of his citizenship. The law is the law, and what is done can not and should not be undone (see the US Constitution, Article I, Section 9 — “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”) But I would change that law to deny it to future Saul Arellanos, to strip one more incentive for aliens to come here illegally and keep them from being used and exploited by their parents.
And again, this would only affect ILLEGAL immigrants. It would draw a sharp distinction between them and LEGAL ones, who far too often are lumped in with the illegal ones, which is a gross insult to them and just what Oliver did in the first place. We need to encourage more LEGAL immigration and discourage ILLEGAL ones, and limiting birthright citizenship to just the children of citizens and legal aliens will go a long way towards that.
Oh,and I see Strowbridge opened his mouth and took another massive shit on the thread. Anyone got some air freshener?
J.
According to Roe V. Wade, August, I’m not affecting a single person. It’s only those born AFTER the Amendment is passed are affected, and in the eyes of the law they are not persons and have no rights as such.
Wrong. That’s actually the argument used in the Dredd Scott case, not Roe v. Wade. The 14th Amendment was largely written to counter the then-winning argument that slaves were not classified as persons. But way to re-argue the case again in favor of slaveholders- and of course suggest that living, breathing people who happen to have foreign parents are equal to unborn zygotes. Cutesy games indeed. You’re pathetic.
Oh,and I see Strowbridge opened his mouth and took another massive shit on the thread. Anyone got some air freshener?
Yep, you want furious, spittle-flecked and profanity-laced comments… CS is definitely your man.
You would like to amend the Constitution to strip rights away currently granted people by it. How does removing the right of citizenship from certain people born in the U.S. not “punish” them?
That’s like saying that if a company decides to change its hiring policies so that I am ineligible to ever apply for a job there, I have been punished by having my employee status “ripped away” from me.
Please explain how can you strip away something that a person has never had in the first place? It’s really not that difficult to comprehend. I’m not sure why you’re having such trouble.
If the constitution is changed as Jay is suggesting, then a child born here will never have had citizenship. Not for a single second. At best, you could argue that he’s had his chance or opportunity for citizenship stripped from him. But not the citizenship itself.
So do you think that right now in Europe, where most of the countries there require at least one parent to be a legal resident (as Jay is suggesting), that the children of illegal immigrants are having their citizenship ripped away every single day? Where is your outrage over that? Where are your calls for European countries to change their racist immigration policies?
You’re the one playing word games here, August. And yes indeed, pathetic.
If the constitution is changed as Jay is suggesting, then a child born here will never have had citizenship. Not for a single second. At best, you could argue that he’s had his chance or opportunity for citizenship stripped from him. But not the citizenship itself.
So you’re arguing that personhood begins at birth? Very interesting.
So you’re arguing that personhood begins at birth? Very interesting.
No, citizenship. What does “personhood” have to do with this issue? Does the 14th amendment say that citizenship is granted at conception or at some point during the gestation period? No. It says a person born here.
What’s your point?
And what about this
or this…
Please, it’s a completely disingenuous crock of sh*t to say that most cons are worried for the legal immigrants when they talk about the “illegals.”
here’s more…
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids put the lie to the notion that concern over illegal immigration is anything but a racist, xenophobic wedge issue and an excuse to piss on the Constitution.
That’s like saying that if a company decides to change its hiring policies so that I am ineligible to ever apply for a job there, I have been punished by having my employee status “ripped away” from me.
How? Employment means you are choosing to grant something to someone who is not guaranteed it. The Constitution guarantees things. They’re called “rights.” You people are amazing.
So do you think that right now in Europe, where most of the countries there require at least one parent to be a legal resident (as Jay is suggesting), that the children of illegal immigrants are having their citizenship ripped away every single day?
Which countries in Europe have a Constitution or equivalent that in their contemporary form previously declared the inherent right of all people born there citizenship that was then later removed? Did other European countries continue the practice of slavery well into the late 19th century, and then try to legally instill the argument that the prior citizenship of a person’s parents and/or nation of origin disqualified them from equal citizenship as a means of preventing minorities from becoming citizens? If that applies to anywhere, then yes, I’m against it, but I’m guessing you weren’t really asking for an answer but just wanted to dodge the question again.
You guys seem obsessed with insane analogies here. Europe, abortions, job applications… I’m still waiting for an answer to the original issue, that being the racial animosity toward immigration. Why, without these stupid analogies of yours, are you so upset by the right of citizenship not using nationality factors as an arbiter? WHY do you think the inherent right of citizenship to people born in this country should be determined by nationality? It’s becoming clearer and clearer why you don’t want to give a straight answer.
No, August, the original question is why Oliver decided to label “anti-illegal alien” measures and attitudes as “anti-immigrant.” Why Oliver doesn’t see any distinction between those who come here legally, follow the rules, and obey the laws, and those who do whatever the hell they please, and then get outraged when they get caught and called to account for breaking laws.
J.