Monday, August 31, 2015

Keeping Track of Them

Not to be outdone by Donald Trump or Scott Walker, Chris Christie of New Jersey thinks we should get FedEx to mark immigrants with bar codes so we could track them like packages.

“At any moment, FedEx can tell you where that package is. It’s on the truck. It’s at the station. It’s on the airplane,” Mr. Christie told the crowd in Laconia, N.H. “Yet we let people come to this country with visas, and the minute they come in, we lose track of them.”

He added: “We need to have a system that tracks you from the moment you come in.”

I suppose tattooing them on their arms would be too on the nose, huh?

It’s His Turn

I never understood why all the Very Serious People said that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) would be a formidable candidate in presidential race.  He’s not an especially inspiring speaker, he hasn’t done that great a job as governor as compared to his neighbor Gov. Mark Dayton of Minnesota in terms of turning the state around after the recession, and he’s basically your average right-wing nut job on social policy such as abortion and marriage equality.  He’s basically Mitch Daniels of Indiana with backing from the Koch Brothers.

Now he and the rest of the GOP field are getting big-footed by Donald Trump and his used-car-dealer demagoguery, so he has to come up with something to get back the spotlight.  Like Mike Huckabee did a month ago, he has to find something to say that will at least get our attention for a moment.

How about immigration?  Well, why not?  It’s a hot topic, and while Wisconsin isn’t the choice destination of anchor babies and pot smugglers, it’s something that gets the base riled up without any logic behind it: deport 11 million! seems to be the way to make them applaud and throw money.

But he had to find a fresh angle.  Everybody’s talking about building a wall to keep out the Mexicans and other brown people; why not look the other way and keep out the white hockey players and poutine-eaters?

NBC’s “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd asked Walker on the Sunday program if he would consider building a wall along the country’s northern border.

Walker said that some people along the campaign trail have raised the issue.

“They raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. So that is a legitimate issue for us to look at,” Walker told Todd.

Rest assured that the only reason Canada would go along with this would be to keep us from getting into Canada.

Monday, August 24, 2015

You Keep Using That Phrase

ThinkProgress on the origins of a term that has become popular with with Republicans.

The GOP presidential campaign kicked off with real estate mogul Donald Trump’s incendiary remarks about Mexican immigrants being rapists and drug dealers, and quickly evolved to endorsements of changing the Constitution to strip millions of immigrants of their citizenship. Now, presidential candidates have a new angle on the immigration debate: Targeting the children of foreign-born parents as so-called “anchor babies.”

The term “anchor babies” has long been relegated to the realm of ultra-conservative arguments against allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the country. But recently, the phrase has been widely used by Republican lawmakers as part of a clarion call to repeal the 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to every child born on U.S. soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.

Mr. Trump champions the phrase and compounds it by by making the demonstrably false statement that only the United States grants birthright citizenship.  (Canada and most of Latin America also grants citizenship to children born in the country.  Why else would Ted Cruz have had to renounce his Canadian citizenship last year?)  Jeb Bush manfully asks “What would you call them?” even after he served on a committee that called for the disuse of the term.  (Hillary Clinton replied via Twitter: “They’re called ‘babies.'”)  Bobby Jindal, the pathetic example of “me-tooism,” is “happy to use it,” perhaps because he is the one closest to being a child who would have been called such so he’s using self-hating deflection.  Scott Walker has been all over the place on it, using the term one week and then, predictably, changing his mind on it the next.  Only Marco Rubio has stood up to condemn the term, so even a blind squirrel can find his nuts.

Like “death panels” or “religious liberty,” it has become a buzzword in the presidential campaign, but it’s also a dog whistle to the kind of people that the party needs to draw in for their base.  Those would be the xenophobic and racist-tinged white males who are big talkers about the Constitution and freedom but are all too happy to junk the parts they don’t like in order to keep living out their gun-stroking fantasies of their perfect world when life wasn’t so complicated, people knew their place, and calling someone a racist or sexist epithet didn’t mean their reality show got cancelled.

If those are the kind of people the Republicans think they need to win a presidential election, we’ve got a lot bigger problem than immigration and what to call people who in any other place would be called citizens.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Take Him Back

As was noted yesterday, Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio would both flunk the “natural born citizenship” test as being put forth by those who are advocating for the end to birthright citizenship.  So would Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  But Mr. Cruz, too, is “absolutely” in favor of ending birthright citizenship.

I just think it’s ironic that the people who would probably have the toughest time reassuring their constituents that they’re real ‘Muricans are the biggest mouths for shutting the door on people who have a stronger claim to being citizens than they do.

As for Mr. Cruz, he had to actually fill out a form to renounce his birthright Canadian citizenship last year.  I would suggest that the good people of his native land take him back; it would be just desserts for sending us Justin Bieber.  But I really like my Canadian friends.

While We’re At It, Repeal the 13th Amendment

Jan Mickelson, a radio talk show host in Iowa, has an idea about what to do with all those people who can’t prove they’re here legally.

…anyone who is in the state of Iowa that who is not here legally and who cannot demonstrate their legal status to the satisfaction of the local and state authorities here in the State of Iowa, become property of the State of Iowa.’ So if you are here without our permission, and we have given you two months to leave, and you’re still here, and we find that you’re still here after we we’ve given you the deadline to leave, then you become property of the State of Iowa. And we have a job for you. And we start using compelled labor, the people who are here illegally would therefore be owned by the state and become an asset of the state rather than a liability and we start inventing jobs for them to do.


CALLER: Well you know I don’t have my Constitution in front of me and you know like I say, it sounds like a clever idea and maybe you can make it – put it in action, but I think the fall out would be so significant. And I, you know —

MICKELSON: What would be the nature of the fall out?

CALLER: Well I think everybody would believe it sounds like slavery?

MICKELSON: Well, what’s wrong with slavery?

Okay, so this is just some right-wing nutsery AM radio talk show guy in Iowa; nothing to worry about, right?  Except for the fact that he doesn’t sound a whole lot further down the road than some of the presidential candidates who are being asked “what do we do with the 11 million people who are undocumented?”

Well, to his credit, the talk show host didn’t say he was advocating for the “final solution.”  That would be a little too on the nose.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Sycophancy and Self-Loathing

Gov. Bobby Jindal:

We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Mr. Jindal is the son of Indian immigrants who came here on his mother’s student visa.  In other words, he’s in favor of ending the constitutional right that made him eligible to run for president.

Oh, yes, he said “illegal” immigrants.  But I seriously doubt that the people who believe we should trash the Fourteenth Amendment are going to split hairs over immigrants who came in on a student visa and had a baby.

I’m sure there are all sorts of psycho-babbly reasons why Mr. Jindal so desperately wants to be liked by people that think he’s unworthy of citizenship, but he’s just embarrassing himself.

Marco Rubio is in the same boat, so to speak.  His parents arrived in the U.S. in 1956 (no, they weren’t fleeing the Castro brothers; they left during the regime of the previous brutal dictator) and were not citizens when Mr. Rubio was born in 1971.  He too is in favor of somehow putting an end to birthright citizenship:

“I’m not in favor of repealing the 14th Amendment,” Rubio said during a Tuesday news conference at the rain-soaked Iowa State Fair. “But I am open to exploring ways of not allowing people who are coming here deliberately for that purpose to acquire citizenship.”

Shorter version: I got mine; screw you.

What’s even more shameful is that Mr. Rubio once co-sponsored the bipartisan immigration bill that included a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants.  But when he realized that would hinder his appeal to the knuckle-dragging know-nothings in the GOP base in his run for the presidency, he turned on the bill to gain their favor.

Neither Bobby Jindal nor Marco Rubio will become president, but frankly who would want to have such weak-willed men in office who would sacrifice both the Constitution and their own family history just to get elected.

Bonus: Paul Waldman at the Washington Post wonders if the Republicans gave away the election of 2016 by landing on the birthright citizenship issue.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Constitutional Dissonance

Shorter Scott Walker on immigration:

We must enforce the law by violating the Constitution.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says we should “reexamine” birthright citizenship as if it is some nebulous policy promulgated by liberals to pack the voting booths with immigrants who have yet to learn to walk.

What is it about people who say they revere the Constitution but have no trouble distorting it, ignoring it, or shredding it to fit their political motives?  If it’s not citizenship as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, it’s the simple declaration that all citizens are entitled to the equal protection of the laws, also in the Fourteenth Amendment, that gave us marriage equality.  Yet somehow that is unconstitutional.

They’re also not wild about the First Amendment protecting people from the establishment of religion because, of course, it’s only meant for Christians.  They also believe that it protects people from being fired for denying marriage licenses to people they don’t like and from networks cancelling reality shows because one of the members of the family that breeds like rabbits is a pedophile, and that the Constitution guarantees “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  No, it does not.  That’s from the Declaration of Independence, which was a resolution passed by the Continental Congress, which went out of business before the Constitution was written.

But let’s be fair.  If we’re going to revisit various parts of the Constitution, let’s talk about the Second Amendment, shall we?

It’s Not Enough To Be Born Here

The birthers are now going after four Republicans because they suspect that they’re not real Americans.

In a column published last week on the conspiracy theory website WND, author Jack Cashill noted that questions had been raised about whether four of the 17 candidates in the GOP field were really “natural born citizens” and therefore eligible to run for President.

Ted Cruz has already dealt with those questions publicly — the Canadian-born senator from Texas renounced his citizenship with that country last summer in anticipation of a 2016 bid — but Cashill also listed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) among those who were suspect.

Catherine Thompson at TPM interviews Mr. Cashill, who claims he has no agenda (even though he doubts that President Obama was really born in Hawaii, and even if he was, his mother wasn’t old enough to claim him as a citizen); he just wants what’s white right for America.

You write that the term “natural born citizen” is “often misunderstood or deliberately twisted.” How so? Can you give me a specific example of that?

When the challenge was made against Barack Obama, people said “how dare you question he’s a natural born citizen because he was born in Hawaii.” Even if he was born in Hawaii, that does not make him a natural born citizen. It’s a very strict term. I won’t say very strict — there’s a real meaning to the term, it’s not that it’s perfectly defined but the understanding is well understood. The understanding is that you be born of American parents with unquestioned loyalty to the United States. So for instance, had Obama been born [somewhere] other than Hawaii he would not have been eligible to run for President. Even though his mother was an American, just like Ted Cruz’s mother was American, the difference is that according to the law you’d have to be an American citizen for five years after the age of 14. She simply wasn’t old enough to confer that status on Obama. If his mother had been a non-American citizen and his father had been a Kenyan, and neither had any allegiance to the United States, which in fact neither of them really did, he would not have been eligible no matter where he was born.

So the question comes up about Bobby Jindal’s parents. Both of them were in the United States on student visas. To me the real question is does the candidate have any divided allegiance. So if Jindal’s parents remained steadfastly identifying as Indians and he steadfastly identified as an Indian, even though he was born in the United States and was a citizen, he would not be eligible. Legitimately, he would not be eligible to be President. But given the fact that he changed his name after a character in “The Brady Bunch” — as American as it gets — I don’t think there’s any question in any of those candidates that there’s any dual allegiance. That’s what the law was designed to prevent, was people with dual allegiance. Especially in the early Republic when you had people who were from England or from France and who really reported back to the motherland first. Even if they were born here they might be children of a diplomat or something like that. The fact that you are a citizen doesn’t make you a natural born citizen.

It’s not enough that you’re born here physically; your parents have to swear some kind of loyalty oath to the United States before someone — he doesn’t say who — decides, “Okay, you’re in.”

There are a whole lot of reasons to be against Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and Rick Santorum for president, but going after their citizenship qualifications is the coward’s way out.

Monday, August 17, 2015

Trump on Immigration

Donald Trump has a plan to control immigration, and it’s as xenophobic and as unconstitutional as you can get without actually invoking the Nuremberg laws.

Business mogul Donald Trump released an immigration plan this weekend almost exclusively focused on enforcement and cracking down on unauthorized immigrants, including preventing babies born in the U.S. to undocumented parents from U.S. citizenship as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

The GOP presidential candidate also repeated a vow to end President Barack Obama’s deportation relief policies for parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. He would instead deport those mothers and fathers, he said. Trump insisted it could be done without separating families — a claim that, although he does not say so explicitly, would effectively mean forcing out children with the right to be in the U.S. if they wanted to remain with their parents.

“We’re going to keep the families together, but they have to go,” Trump told NBC’s Chuck Todd in a “Meet the Press” interview that aired Sunday.

The wingnuts love it, of course, because America Fuck Yeah!

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Short Takes

Secretary of State Kerry made an unannounced visit to Somalia.

Twitter Trail: Police follow the moves of the Texas shooters via social media.

Attorney General Lynch went to Baltimore.

President Obama is nominating Gen. Joseph Dunford, Jr. as the new head of the Joint Chiefs.

Hillary Clinton promises to go “even further” on immigration.

The Tigers lost to the White Sox 5-2.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Short Takes

U.S. worried about living up to Netanyahu’s campaign promises.

Native American council offers amnesty to 220 million undocumented white people.

Boehner calls for National Guard to deal with illegal immigrants hiding in Mexico.

Sarah Palin announces presidential bid for 2016; vows to destroy Obama’s “liberal utopia.”

God shoots Himself while cleaning his gun.

Rabbit, rabbit, rabbit.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Short Takes

President Obama asked Congress for an AUMF against ISIS.

The U.S. and Britain abruptly closed their embassies in Yemen.

GOP Senator says it’s time to give up the fight on immigration.

Diplomats are trying to work out a peace agreement for Ukraine.

North Carolina man held in killing of three Muslim students.

CBS News correspondent Bob Simon, 73, killed in a car accident in New York City.

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Almost Made It

Dr. Ben Carson, the longshot GOP candidate for 2016, was sounding like the voice of reason among all the twitterpation about vaccinations last week when he said that all children should get their shots, period.  But then, to quote the old song, he went and spoiled it all by saying something stupid.

“These are things that we had under control. We have to account for the fact that we now have people coming into the country sometimes undocumented people who perhaps have diseases that we had under control,” he said. “So now we need to be doubly vigilant about making sure that we immunize them to keep them from getting diseases that once were under control.”

Head/desk.  The reality is that children in Central America get vaccinated; it has something to do with those countries having universal health care, and in places that don’t, NGO’s — many from the U.S. — who help parents get their kids vaccinated.

Oh, so close, Dr. Carson, to sounding reasonable.  But you had to throw in with the immigration nutsery.

Monday, January 26, 2015

Random Thought

Not that it’s any of my business, but why are the Republicans in Congress hell-bent on bringing up two topics — abortion and immigration — that have proven to be toxic for them in recent elections?  Do they really want to drive away women and Hispanic voters even more than they already have?

But hey, who am I to tell them what to do.  Please proceed.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Lost in Translation

The official GOP response to President Obama’s SOTU was delivered by newly-minted Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA).  She said that instead of responding point by point to the president, she’d talk about her own trials and tribulations and how she and her family was able to pull itself up by their own bootstraps (and bread bags) to become a rich farmer (with the help of some generous government assistance).  The American dream come true as long as you’re born white here; she didn’t say anything about immigration policy or what the Republicans plan to do about it.

The official Spanish-language version of the GOP response was delivered by another new face on Capitol Hill, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) whose last job was as my nominal boss; up until his election he was a member of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools board.  His speech was pretty much the same as Ms. Ernst’s; the family history, how he wants the best for America, how he cares about the middle class and wants them to rise up, etc.  But he did talk about immigration, saying (translated) “We should also work through the appropriate channels to create permanent solutions for our immigration system.”

So why did Ms. Ernst leave out that part?  I can think of two possible reasons.  First, she toes the Republican line on immigration reform (don’t do shit about it until That Man is out of the White House), and second, the GOP thinks that a Cuban-American from Miami might have a bit more credibility with the Hispanic audience when it comes to immigration reform.  Yeah, except most Hispanics know that Cubans aren’t exactly the ones to listen to regarding immigration since they get frontsies.

So far the response to Mr. Curbelo’s address has been tepid: “Eres una desgracia” doesn’t need a translation.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

GOP Craps On Immigrants

Via the New York Times:

The House on Wednesday voted to gut major provisions of President Obama’s immigration policy, approving legislation that would revoke legal protections for millions of undocumented immigrants, including children, and put them at risk of deportation.

The vote drew condemnation from Democrats and the White House and led more than two dozen Republicans, many worried about the perception that the party is hostile to immigrants, to break away and vote no.

Hey, Republicans, how’s the outreach to the Hispanic and immigration bloc working for you?

Monday, January 12, 2015

Short Takes

Over a million people marched in Paris against terror.

F.B.I. assumes larger surveillance role.

Ice storms and freezing rain head for the eastern U.S.

Seven shot, two killed in North Carolina house party.

House GOP plans to undercut Obama’s immigration plans.

Who won a Golden Globe?

Friday, December 5, 2014

Something For The Children

Watching the House of Representatives is like trying to keep an eye on a bunch of sugared-up eight-year-olds on the playground, except you expect more maturity from the kids battling it out on the monkey bars than you do from this bunch of spoiled brats.

By a vote of 219-197, the Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL)-sponsored bill seeks to undo the president’s latest executive action by exempting “categories of persons unlawfully present in the United States from removal under the immigration laws.” The president announced before Thanksgiving that he would take executive action to extend deportation relief and temporary work authorization to the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents and other undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children and who have lived here for at least five years.

According to NBC News’ Luke Russert, Reps. Gohmert and Stutzman voted against the bill “because it doesn’t go far enough.” Seven Republicans, Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Jeff Denham (R-CA), David Valadao (R-CA), Mike Coffman (R-CO) Louis Gohmert (R-TX), and Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) voted no.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) gave his approval for the symbolic vote partly to allow Republicans to express their anger at the president for what they perceived to be an unilateral action on immigration law, Politico reported. Boehner hoped that allowing the vote would make Tea Party lawmakers more amenable to a two-part government spending bill next week that would prevent a government shutdown.

Either Mr. Boehner doesn’t have any kids or if he does he’s never learned Rule #1 of parenting: never give in to a child’s demands in hopes of insuring better behavior later on.  It never happens, and in this case, he didn’t even get the desired results: Gohmert and the rest of the Nutsery caucus will never be satisfied with symbolic gestures and empty votes unless it’s one of their own.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Bad Example

If Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) wants to be considered as a serious candidate for president, then perhaps he needs to do better research into what he’s talking about when he makes historical comparisons.

Paul made the comments on Friday, a day after Obama formally announced the executive actions, at the Kentucky Association of Counties conference in Lexington, Kentucky.

“I care that too much power gets in one place. Why? Because there are instances in our history where we allow power to gravitate toward one person and that one person then makes decisions that really are egregious,” Paul said. “Think of what happened in World War II where they made the decision. The president issued an executive order. He said to Japanese people ‘we’re going to put you in a camp. We’re going to take away all your rights and liberties and we’re going to intern you in a camp.'”

“We shouldn’t allow that much power to gravitate to one individual. We need to separate the power.”

First, as has been noted here and elsewhere, the president is using executive power on immigration in the same way almost every other president has since World War II, including the sainted Ronald Reagan.

Second, Mr. Paul’s specific comparison to the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II may be geared to rile up an emotional response — the action was racist and reactionary to the point that the U.S. government officially apologized (even though it took over fifty years to do it) — but both the Supreme Court and the United States Congress went along with it.  President Roosevelt may have acted by executive order, but he had help.

Friday, November 21, 2014