Skip to main content

Statue of Liberty
'Don't come here. Furthermore, get out.'
Lets get down to the honest GOP position on immigration:
OK, first thing you do is start deporting people -- not by the hundreds, not by the dozens. By the thousands. And that means entire families. Not just a father, a mother. But we keep families unified by deporting all people who are are here illegally, that's number one.


I think there has to be an end to this thing called birthright citizenship. Some people call it anchor babies. But this is not required by our Constitution, it doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

First, she's dead wrong. The 14th Amendment clearly states:
"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.
There are Federal statutes that implement this, a longstanding rule of English Common Law. Screw all that, says Ingraham. Bring back Dred-Scott. Ingraham says nothing about the descendants of slaves who gained their citizenship via this amendment, but its safe to assume she'd welcome mass deportation of black people without reservation.

I applaud Ingraham for her honesty. This is the essence of the GOP's position on not just immigration, but even the birthrights of the children of American citizens. The Republican Party is in favor police going around rounding up whole families and shipping them out. Even if the children are born and raised here. It doesn't matter if it turns America into a police state. Even those of you who have ancestors here for centuries will have to prove to the authorities that your children have the right to be an American. There's your small government conservative. These are the sentiments that took down Eric Cantor.

This is the God-honest reason the GOP will not accept any form of immigration reform. They dont want any immigration, period. Plain and simple, it means the end of white supremacy and they cant stomach that anymore than they can stomach a black president. The GOP establishment knows better, even if just for the reason of keeping a steady supply of cheap labor. But make no mistake, the base would rather America become a police state, including taking away the citizenship rights of every child from now on.

Decent Americans, who still believe in the the spirit of the Statue of Liberty and jus soli, have to face facts: there is no compromise on this issue. Republicans must be thrown out of office and immigration reform, including citizenship, must be imposed on them no matter what their objections are.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  these people lie uncorrected so often (6+ / 0-)
    I think there has to be an end to this thing called birthright citizenship. Some people call it anchor babies. But this is not required by our Constitution, it doesn't require a constitutional amendment.
    between this and the continued LIES about the 4 forms of birth control Hobby Lobby threw a tantrum about and got special rights over (THEY ARE NOT ABORTIFACENTS) I'm at my wits end.

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

    by terrypinder on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:03:33 AM PDT

  •  Equivalent of the Population of Ohio. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, elwior

    Barely 10% the size of a typical tea party protest.

    Are the Kochs paying the bus fare?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:05:33 AM PDT

  •  Any change in birthright citizenship (5+ / 0-)

    would require a Constitutional Amendment and would only impact children born of non-citizens after the date the Amendment was ratified. Most countries don't have birthright citizenship, although it is common in North and South America.

    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

    by VClib on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:06:27 AM PDT

    •  Were not most countries. Were this country. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, elwior, happymisanthropy, bakeneko

      And in this country if you're born on American soil, you're an American. Love it or leave it.

      •  That is certainly the law of the land! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bob Duck, happymisanthropy, Pi Li

        However, I think many Americans think its universal, that all countries have birthright citizenship. Most don't.

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:12:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  depends on how you define jus sanguinis (0+ / 0-)
          However, I think many Americans think its universal, that all countries have birthright citizenship. Most don't.
          Jus sanguinis is the other broad legal principle determining citizenship.  It literally means 'right of blood' and what it implies is that the children of citizen(s) are automatically citizens, regardless of where they're born.  But the children of non-citizens are not automatically citizens, even if they're born in the country's territory.

          Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, the US essentially practices both jus sanguinis and jus solis or 'right of soil', which ties citizenship to territory rather than ancestry.  Truly repealing "birthright citizenship" would imply rejecting both principles and making the citizenship of all persons conditional regardless of where they're born or who they're born to.  It also follows that the denaturalization of large numbers of people would be necessary in order to purge people who legally are citizens but whom the conservatives consider undesirable.

          Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

          by Visceral on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:04:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Any Constitional change would only impact (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pi Li

            children born after the amendment was ratified. There would be no purge of those who were deemed citizens before the ratification.

            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

            by VClib on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:08:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  there would be no automatic purge (0+ / 0-)

              But it's not hard for me to imagine that would be the next step.  It's inevitable if you truly believe that some people by virtue of who they are simply cannot "belong" and ought not to be able to exercise the rights and reap the benefits of American citizenship.

              If there was sufficient support to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment, there would be little restraint on denaturalization.

              Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

              by Visceral on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:14:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I just don't believe that (0+ / 0-)

                I think there is a surprising bipartisan percentage of US citizens who are in favor of changing from a birthright citizenship to a more European style. However, I have not seen any polls on this question and the poll questions would have to be carefully worded to obtain truthful answers, and not bias the poll.

                I do not believe there is a majority, or the political will, to change from a birthright citizen standard, but in any event I think the percentage of people who would vote for a purge is very small. That would take a separate Constitutional Amendment and I don't know any member of the House or Senate who would support it.

                "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                by VClib on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 01:12:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Prior to the 14th amendment (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            America practiced jus solis.  For white babies only.

            We've always had birthright citizenship for people of the approved skin color.

            222 house republicans support the Ryan budget that would convert Medicare to a premium-support program. In other words, they want to repeal Medicare and replace it with a system that works just like Obamacare.

            by happymisanthropy on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:41:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  That's true only if one is "subject to the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sfbob, bakeneko

        jurisdiction" of the United States at birth; hence, children born to diplomats in the United States do not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.  See Amendment 14.

        •  "subject to the jurisdiction" can be a source of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          great arguments and interpretation - as this excludes citizenship by birth in some situations.

          While "children born to diplomats" is frequently used as an instance of this, if the 14th amendment was to have this be the only exclusion the 14th Amendment would have said "children born to diplomats".

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:14:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  That is the way I feel about it too. We are the (0+ / 0-)

        freaking UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! We need to live up to what we value and love about being lucky enough to live here. I know what I would like to see Obama do. I want him to give the Dreamers immedicate citizenship, sign it and done. To give permaent residency to the parents of Dreamers and parents of children who are citizens. This will help stop the destruction of family units with deportation. If I were president I would give all the other undocumented permanent residency too.  

        For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

        by snackdoodle on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:21:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't the cherry picking interesting (0+ / 0-)

        When it comes to things like the social safety net, health care, gun control, hate speech, taxes, etc., I read quite a bit here about how the US should emulate the more enlightened European nations.

        When it comes to immigration...not so much.

        Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

        by Pi Li on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 11:04:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What is meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction (0+ / 0-)

      thereof"?.  Unfortunately, the 14th does not simply say all persons born in the US are citizens.

      The logical reading of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship by birth is:

      All persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...
      Not all born in the US are citizens by birth.  Those who are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are not citizens.  So what does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?  The instance of children of diplomats are frequently used as an example of this.  But if that is the only exclusion, why doesn't the 14th say directly, except the children of diplomats?

      This provides more than enough room for courts and Congress to rule on who are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  

      This is especially the case given our history of treating most all if not all other "absolute rights" in the Constitution as not being absolute.  

      I do not oppose citizenship by birth.  However, I can see how those who oppose birthright citizenship can argue and potentially win when the mother is not a legal resident of the US.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:37:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clearly, the children of immigrants (legal or ... (0+ / 0-)

        otherwise) are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Otherwise, they couldn't be tried in our courts. And I seriously doubt that Laura Ingraham would argue that the children of illegal immigrants can't be prosecuted in our courts.

        Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

        by leevank on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 11:26:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ingraham sound Germany. Maybe we should deport (0+ / 0-)

    her zeik heil ass back there.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:07:29 AM PDT

  •  Ingraham Knew She Was Wrong (11+ / 0-)

    Before she became a full time Fox personality, she was a law clerk first to a Second Circuit judge, then to Clarence Thomas.  Ingraham then took a job as a white collar criminal defense lawyer at the Washington D.C. office of Skadden Arps.

    Joke if you want about Clarence Thomas, but you don't get these jobs by being ignorant about something as basic as what the 14th Amendment says.

    When you say something you know isn't true that's called a lying.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:08:27 AM PDT

  •  Achtung!!....Papers please. (3+ / 0-)
  •  I'd rather see an end to radical right wing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, a2nite

    radio and TV, but we'd need a constitutional amendment to make it happen.

    Of course lying is not protected speech, we have Libel and Slander laws to take care of that aspect of non-protected speech.  If you lie in court, we have Perjury laws to take care of that non-protected speech.

    If you want to go on right wing radio and spew stupid and offensive opinions all day, and be recognized as the idiot you are (listening, Rush, Glenn, Sean, Laura?) then that, of course is protected free speech.

    Republicans are like alligators. All mouth and no ears.

    by Ohiodem1 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:22:32 AM PDT

  •  This may sound odd, but.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    she has always reminded me of Mr. Krabs' daughter, Pearl.

    If you're familiar at all with "Spongebob Squarepants," Pearl is constantly whiny, petulant, and awful, and her mannerisms and voice have always reminded me of Laura Ingraham.

    What the hell were you thinking, Keith O.?

    As a first-generation American, I twitch at immigrant bashing. They built this country and continue to be our greatest resource.

    The mosaic is what makes us special.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:31:32 AM PDT

    •  Reading the stories in the Hartford Courant (0+ / 0-)

      about graduation from the high schools in Hartford always contain a story like this year's about a young man who came from Albania in his freshman year of high school and graduated the Buckley High School Sport & Medical Sciences Academy as salutatorian and will be attending the University of CT in the fall. The valedictorian came from Jamaica. Every time I read one of those stories, I'm reminded of the vitality and drive that immigrants bring to our country.
      And, of course, being the granddaughter of Jews who got out of Belarus before WWI, doesn't hurt either.

      If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? When I am only for myself, then what am "I"? And if not now, when?

      by betorah on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 01:45:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, sfbob, happymisanthropy
    there is no compromise on this issue. Republicans must be thrown out of office
    'nuff said.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:31:59 AM PDT

  •  Ever see a copy of "Of Thee I Zing"?? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I leafed through it at the library once.  It's just awful, and not for her hate-filled rants and lies.  It's awful because it is truly bad comedy, and she thinks it's really funny.

    Please know I am not rude. I cannot rec anything from this browser. When I rec or post diaries I am a guest at some exotic locale's computer. Ayn is the bane!

    by Floyd Blue on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:34:56 AM PDT

  •  How far back would he like to go? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, marina, sfinx

    My ancestors only arrived here in the late 19th Century. They're probably just a bit suspect.

    I would suggest, in the name of consistency, that we apply this to everyone who arrived here from Europe after 1600 just so the riffraff don't get a free pass.

  •  Let me take another opportunity to point out (4+ / 0-)

    that there is no such thing as an "anchor baby"!

    A child born in the United States to noncitizen parents becomes a United States citizen at birth.  And he can indeed petition to immigrate his parents.  But not until he is 21 years old!  Nobody ever had a child in the United States out of a hope of personally being able to immigrate more than 20 years later.  It just never happens.

    But Republicans, of course, are liars.

    •  If a couple... (0+ / 0-)

      who are not legally here have a child, the chances of them being deported for compassionate reasons are very, very small in the current environment. I think that is what many refer to as an anchor baby. I would assume that the process of them being legalized might well happen before the child turns 21. If that doesn't happen, then they have that option, also later in life.

      •  Good try, but you don't realize that Obama is (0+ / 0-)

        the Deporter-In-Chief.  It's just not true that that hypothetical family would have a "very, very small" chance of being deported.  And the government, including the Obama administration, deports U.S. citizens very frequently.

  •  We *are* deporting by the thousands. (0+ / 0-)

    Around 400,000 per year IIRC.  At that rate it will take around 30 years to deport that last illegal immigrant, and that's assuming we build the Great Wall of Texas and no one tunnels under it.  Which they will.

    I'm sure Ingraham will support expanding the Department of Homeland Security enough to put a dent in that number.  I'm sure she'll also support building the Great Wall of Texas.

    Provided, that is, that we use slave labor to do it.  Taxes are teh Debbil, after all.

    Bello ne credite, Americani; quidquid id est, timeo Republicanos et securitatem ferentes.

    by Sura 109 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:17:23 AM PDT

  •  The United States of America is the melting pot (0+ / 0-)

    Of the world.  We seem to assimilate people from all over the world and have this unique ability of wrapping our arms around immigrants and bringing them in to the American fold better than other countries around the world.  
    Sure we have dark periods when we have turned on the newest immigrants or have been fearful and tried to exclude people's who we can't relate to or we think are trying to take over for those periods in history we can all be ashamed.  But the American ideals and laws that say that we are all created equal, that we are all a part of this wonderful crazy dream called America and people come from all over the world to become part of and celibrate being American.  Birthright citizenship is a vital part in our crazy melting pot of races and cultures...that we used to celebrate.   Knowing your children are secure as American citizens, that this citizenship is theirs by birth has been the most important factor in our success as a nation of immigrants.  
    We have to fight back against this terrible idea that is based on hate and division with a resolve for the basic ideals that make this country great (worts and problems included) for all our sake and society's.

    We are not powerless!! "Activism is the rent I pay for living on this planet."– Alice Walker

    by nocynicism on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:59:53 AM PDT

  •  Yes, imposed; forced; forcibly imposed.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    .."ram it down their throats" (a favorite of the right); imperially mandated; denied the right to; not at liberty to; any and all of the hyperbolic republican BS talking points and grievance pandering thrown back without mercy

    Republicans must be thrown out of office and immigration reform, including citizenship, must be imposed on them no matter what their objections are.
    No you may not; do not; can not have the freedom to impose your racist republican views on or deny the rights of others.

    Since every accusation and threat of retribution has already been meted out by the RWNJ's, why not force them to hear it; see it; eat it and live with it until they completely lose it.  And another thing; GTFO of town if you don't like it

    That should bring things to a head. Why wait; force the reactionary kneejerk that is darn near guaranteed to follow. Impeachment.
     That should clear the way for some solid Dem gains for another decade or so (late 90's)

    It's actually been happening with Dem leadership including the President, not in the crude fashion as I'm saying here, but it's time to pound them back - hard.

    It won't be pretty but it will speed what going on in slow motion up a bit. Make things fast. furious, visible and done with

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site