California Congressman Duncan Hunter (cool name, BTW), wants to deport American citizens if their parents came into the country illegally.
Couple problems with this: IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS RACIST FACE. The constitution defines citizenship to include ANYONE born here. And a very old Supreme Court case, US v. Ark, has already decided that this means ANYONE born here, regardless of the nationality of the person's parents.
So, no, you can't do that, Grand Dragon Hunter. As much as I know your Tea Bagging constituents would love to start loading up all the non-white children in your district and sending them back to wherever, you may not do that.
What kind of ignorant cockroach is this guy? It's not like there has not been a constant stream of conversation at the Tea Party rallies concerning whether Obama was born in the US. Does he even get why this is being asked?
(Pssst, hey Duncan. It's because being born in the US means Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore qualified to be President.)
Ironically, all these little non-white American citizens he wants to throw out of the country WILL BE LEGALLY ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT WHEN THEY ARE OLD ENOUGH BECAUSE THEY WERE BORN HERE!
The second problem is this part of his quote: "It takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen - it's what's in our souls." Are they vampires? Do they not have souls? And finally
WHAT IS THE AMERICAN SOUL IF NOT THE SOUL OF AN IMMIGRANT?
The very backbone of America is its thriving diversity and its lack of an aristocracy. We are all peasants from peasants. And those who claim a bluer bloodline basically forfeit that when they come here.
So, Mr. Duncan Hunter, with your white Anglo/Celtic/Saxon soul: What the hell are you talking about? They want to come here for a better life. That is the very heart and soul of America, right back to your own immigrant, European, peasant ancestors.I suppose he could have been referring to the souls of the indigenous peoples of North America, whom we call Native Americans. But somehow, I don't think that's what he meant. His statement reeks of a sense of innate superiority (dare I say white supremacy?).
Yes, it does take more than walking across the border. America is an unforgiving place with no health care for poor people and a rising tide of anti-immigrant attitudes. But Duncan Hunter does NOT know what it takes to be an American. If he did, he would NEVER suggest deporting its citizens.
Okay, Heather, Jason Hinson here... I'll bite...
ReplyDeleteLooks like I have to make this a two-part post, so here's part 1:
This guy apparently doesn't understand that "birth in America = citizenship" is a Constitutional guarantee and that a citizen is a citizen--you can't just deport some of them because you want to discourage a particular illegal behavior in others.
Now, is he a racist? I don't know, but here's that thing--I'd submit that neither do you! I could be wrong, but I see only evidence of ignorance, not racism. Perhaps you're perspective is quite tainted??? The idea that anti-illegal-immigration is anti-legal-immigration and/or racist is, frankly, a logical fallacy. Put bluntly, it's just plain stupid.
I don't see the direct results of illegal immigration on a day to day basis because of where I live, but I've studied it as part of an analysis project where I used to work, and I know it's a huge problem. The more we can put a stop to it, the better. Though I don't know a lot about immigration law myself, I could imagine that we might also have better ways to allow legal immigration (or at least migrant workers), but that doesn't excuse the acceptance of illegal immigration.
Consider the possibility that someone who is NOT racist NOR anti-immigration might also be very much against illegal immigration. It's perfectly reasonable, but it doesn't let you take your little jabs at select individuals whose REAL crime is their general political policies with which you disagree.
I find so much of your blog is about picking some straw-man, supposed representative of some idea or ideology and tearing them down at a personal level (which is usually pretty easy to do given the choice of the straw-men involved). But you're not just trying to poke fun at the particular goofball or nutcase involved--it's an obvious attempt to indict the broader political ideology that the person would appear to espouse. It's called Ad Hominem, and I'm afraid your blog is full of it.
(continued...)
(part 2 from Jason Hinson)
ReplyDeleteAs for the ACTUAL issue...
I'd personally find it interesting to debate an amendment to the constitution requiring at least one parent be a US citizen in order for someone to be a naturally born citizen. Obviously this doesn't change anyone's current citizenship or in any way support the crazy idea of deporting US citizens, but it actually gets to the real meat of the matter. Pregnant, non-US citizens have actually tried to cross the boarder while in labor just to ensure that their child is born as a US citizen. It's a dangerous move, and you have to feel for them; but nonetheless, it highlights the unintended consequences of the wording in the 14th amendment, and it actually makes sense to require more than just "birth within the boarders" to become a citizen by birth.
As for the "it's what's in our souls" comment, I take a different perspective on it. Certainly a non-US citizen could have the ideology of America "in their souls," but if you are here illegally, you've already ignored the rule of law and we have no way of knowing about you or the real "soul" of your desire to be here. A while back I had a thought that I'm still a little dubious on, but it went something like this: What if we required (again, though an EXTREMELY unlikely constitutional amendment) that at age 18, all US citizens were given a choice of two alternatives. First, they could sign something of an allegiance to what you could call the basic American principles: They must agree that all people are created equal with certain unalienable rights. They must agree that the US government has the job of equally protect those freedoms as justly as possible for all citizens. They must agree not to undermine these ideals (though obviously this does not mean that they can't have vastly varied ideas on HOW the ideals are accomplished). If they make such an allegiance they would become voting citizens of the US. If they did not agree, they would be non-voting citizens (with all the other rights and protections of citizenship). That's the idea--if you think we should be ruled by a king, you don't get the right to vote--you're not an American "in your soul" so to speak. If you think a person's race makes them less or more of a human, you don't get the chance to push those ideas on others by voting.
I KNOW there are some major issues with the idea, but it does make an important point IMHO--being a "true American" should not simply be about birth within the boarders of this country for anyone. It should include a general mentality about your fellow citizens having equal rights to yours and the understanding that government in our country must first and foremost be about protecting everyone's basic freedoms. If you fundamentally disagree with these ideas, then it would be nice if you didn't have any power in the political process--after all, our political process is BASED on those ideals.
FINALLY, let me go back and add one more bit on the Ad Hominem concept. I've received a few emails from friends talking about some of Obama's gaffes. I accept that people are people, and while I am somewhat interested when any President's decisions are questionable, the only really interesting part of all that to me is the question of how the media covers such issues compared to how they would handle it if, say, Bush had made the same gaffes. However, none of that means anything to me about Obama's policies. His occasional missteps don't say anything against his actual policies--his policies do enough of that on their own. I guess I'm saying that this particular logical fallacy has become particularly annoying to me, so perhaps it helped spark this long monologue.
Wow, did you actually get all the way to here? Impressive!
-Jason
Jason,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the attention! I am not going to respond to everything, but I do want to say this: the reason I think he is racist is not because I think he is vicious or mean. It is because NO ONE would suggest deporting the white, European descendants of illegal aliens born in the US. He is only talking about deporting Hispanic American citizens. Brown-skinned people. That's racist.