The Border
I just want to drop a few newslinks for the gallery before signing off. The news cycle is moving so fast that I don’t have the time to respond to every important development.
(1) Steve King (R-Iowa), the next chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, plans to come out swinging in the 112th Congress. The opening salvo: the introduction of a bill that would deny birthright citizenship to illegal aliens.
Tom McClintock is one of its supporters. Some of the Californians on this website might recall McClintock losing the California gubernatorial recall election in 2003 to Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I keep hearing in the comments that elections don’t have consequences.
(2) Apparently, Texas is going nuts over violent Mexican drug cartels. Gov. Rick Perry is launching a counterinsurgency and deploying the Texas Rangers to the border. This is a volatile situation which could conceivably spiral out of control.
Suppose Texas exchanged gunfire with Mexico. What would Barack Obama do? Send in the National Guard to protect illegal aliens like the Little Rock Nine? Something like that could spark a full blown secession crisis.
Undoubtedly, Rick Perry would kill for such a George Wallace moment.
(3) The Michael Steele meltdown continues.
(4) Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to make another attempt at the DREAM Act amnesty.
Michelle Malkin has polled the Republican Caucus in the Senate. The fence sitters are John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Sam Brownback and George LeMieux.
Apparently, Grahamnesty isn’t on board this time. If you live in Florida, Texas, Maine, Alaska, Kansas or Arizona, it is time to make a phone call. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) is spearheading the opposition in the Senate.
(5) As violence escalates along the Mexican border, Barack Obama is actually going to pull National Guard troops away from the border as part of his now “Southwest Security Plan.” That’s how Obama plans to cut federal spending.
Isn’t the biggest contender for the RNC chair a Jew?
The bill to deny citizenship to anchor babies is a good start, but obviously unconstitutional (unfortunately).
Though with the conservative supreme court, anything could happen.
The bill to deny citizenship to anchor babies is a good start, but obviously unconstitutional (unfortunately).
Though with the conservative supreme court, anything could happen
But at least it will have been introduced, who is to say we can’t keep bringing the thing up again and again until we get our way, just like with poofter mariage. The left never lets a defeat keep them from pressing on with their agenda. I say a very stacked with conservatives Supreme Court could apply the “and under it’s jurisdiction” clause in the 14th amendment to mean it does not apply to outlaw invaders and nulify all the illegals born here since the 86 amnesty. All these little brown worthless rats filling up OUR schools across the land can then be put on a one way bus to Juarez.
National Guard withdrawals – are they retrait or retraite?
Makes perfect sense, Obama is promoting stepping out so the locals will step up… errr…what’s that? The DOJ wont let us step up?
Well, I guess they are just pulling back to a more defensible position.
I called the GOP HQm, and left a message, the day after the election. Among other things, I told them to get that Sambo Minstrel Steele out of the Chairman gig. They can make him a janitor, or something. But that his installation, as a pathetic attempt to emulate Obama – well – it was embarassing. I always use my real name. FYI.
Since the Creatures Infesting DC care so little for the Constitution re: anchor hijos – why should we?
Boot the little cucarachas out.
Lol, look at the first page of comments from the HP libs at that Steele link. They all act like it’s just racism. See how libs work? The Republicans hire a black dude to run the party, and it gets them zero credit. Nada. Zilch. Zero. They talk about firing him, and it can’t be because he sucks. It’s racism.
Hilarious! E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G is “who – whom?” to liberals.
Actually there was never an anchor baby loophole in the Constitution. Lets look at the first section of the fourteenth amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The usual suspects broadly interpreted this clause into something completely different from its original intent which was to enfranchise the emancipated slaves. But this interpretation flies in the face of common sense.
If they are the children of the legal residents of another nation, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If someone here on a temporary visa has children who are born here what if they decide to take their children home, because America is at war with their country? There were German and Japanese nationals living in the USA who had offspring born here when the hostilities of WWII broke out. There is not a single instance of the USA invoking birthright citizenship to take custody of their children from them.
Why not? Since we still love to demonize Germany because of Hitler and his Nazis, would it not make sense to invoke American jurisdiction over German children born in the USA to keep Hitler from getting control of anymore breeder girls or soldier boys? But we didn’t do this, because these children were not under our jurisdiction.
Only children born of either naturalized citizens or citizens who were born here can be considered under the jurisdiction of our country have birthright citizenship. The rest of them do not. It’s a fraud.
The Reds have been pimping the Constitution for decades. Their claim that some action is unconstitutional should carry as much weight as an accusation of racism. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
“The left never lets a defeat keep them from pressing on with their agenda.”
This is why it is important to have driving ideas that have a trajectory. For example “Diversity is Good” has an unlimited trajectory and as “diversity” actually means fewer white people it’s end trajectory is white genocide “Conservative” has no trajectory. It’s pure defence. Strict constitutionalism has some trajectory but potentially self-limiting. “Diversity Kills” has trajectory.
(nb. There may be better or similar foundational ideas. I’m using “Diversity Kills” because it’s a simple example of an idea with trajectory – an idea with an almost endless number of policies that could potentially flow from it.)
“The Constitution is not a suicide pack.” This idea was repeatedly thumped by one of my professors in college. What HE meant by it was “we Leftists should ignore the Constitution’s plain text when we have to” to advance a liberal agenda.
He was Jewish, and an ex prosecutor. And one tough SOB too. Very hard to argue against, basically a street brawler with probably a 145 verbal IQ. Upon reflection he was a classic Jewish leftist. His arguments were based on a combination of a legitimately vast knowledge of the law, sophistry, half-truths and mockery of anyone who disagreed.
The fatal flaws of the Constitution were not defining the Republic as White only, and not making it explicit that political equality should be construed extremely narrowly, and they should have excluded these two principles from the amendment process. Because that’s what they meant by it. They meant that Whites should be treated equally under the law, not that there is no natural heirarchy or that all men are literally created equally, including masses of non-Whites they never could have anticipated world land on American soil. There has always been some dispute about Blacks, but for sure they never meant that Hmongs and Mestizos should be accorded the same rights as native Whites.
The founders were brilliant but as great as they were they couldn’t see that far ahead.
Wandrin,
Another great insight, trajectory versus non-trajectory.
“The fatal flaws of the Constitution were not defining the Republic as White only, and not making it explicit that political equality should be construed extremely narrowly”
You could argue that they did do that. Only whites were citizens when America was founded.