Per Dave Weigel at Slate, “Paul and Vitter Introduce Birthright Citizenship Resolution“:
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ken., are jointly introducing a “resolution that would amend the Constitution” — not an amendment — to deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States “unless at least one parent is a legal citizen, legal immigrant, active member of the Armed Forces or a naturalized legal citizen.”
__
The rest of the statement, with the language of the resolution forthcoming:
__
“For too long, our nation has seen an influx of illegal aliens entering our country at an escalating rate, and chain migration is a major contributor to this rapid increase – which is only compounded when the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are granted automatic citizenship,” said Sen. Vitter. “Closing this loophole will not prevent them from becoming citizens, but will ensure that they have to go through the same process as anyone else who wants to become an American citizen.”
__
“Citizenship is a privilege, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits,” said Sen. Paul. “This legislation makes it necessary that everyone follow the rules, and goes through same process to become a U.S. citizen.”
__
Vitter and Paul do not believe that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, either by its language or intent. This resolution makes clear that under the 14th Amendment a person born in the United States to illegal aliens does not automatically gain citizenship… “
Guess it’s obvious why Rand Paul wouldn’t want to pollute the sterling (spoon) membership of the Lucky Sperm club with those people, but why is Vitter suddenly a friend of Aqua Buddah? Are we gonna see some indictments, at long last, concerning Diaper Dave’s legislative shenanigans?
SFAW
Amendments – how do they work?
But I bet they’d get Scalia onboard to say “Hey, no problem!” re: their resolution.
joe from Lowell
Because those immigrants’ children have an annoying tendency to vote the wrong way.
Desperate, rear-guard measure from a party staring at demographic doom.
Chris
There goes my America. The nation of immigrants that took in the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
Dave
Well, at least we can take comfort knowing these will never come close to becoming law. But this is it for the next two years…asinine GOP ideas that do nothing to actually improve the economy or the country.
jacy
Hey, I say if citizenship is a privilege, let’s start deporting those actively championing sedition. Bye-bye Tea Party!
Sloegin
How ’bout we deny citizenship to those who can’t figure out how one goes about changing the Constitution?
sal
Well, I think this is a fine idea, if made retroactive. Either all your ancestors were here before 1776, or you must be able to provide legal proof that they were all officially naturalized in order to be a citizen. What, no papers proving naturalization and legal entry from the 1850’s? Tough dude, leave the country and get in line.
No great great great great great great great great anchor babies, baby!
Nutella
@jacy:
And bye-bye Alaska Independence Party and neo-secessionist Rick Perry too!
El Cid
What the fuck is that? “Amend” the Constitution but “not an Amendment”?
Sure, why not.
Just put some fucking GOP “signing statement” on the Constushun to the effect that ‘it means whatever we damn well want it too, and pretty much only the 2nd and 10th amendments count anyway’.
Litlebritdifrnt
As I said somewhere else, I thought these guys loved fetuses, now they want to take away their rights before they are even born? WTF!
ETA seeing as they also believe that life begins at conception then in their view the baby is a citizen then, not at birth, perhaps they should amend their resolution to take account of that itty bitty problem.
ItAintEazy
More important, why is Vitter still a Senator? Because of shit like this?
GregB
Any chance Vitter will learn how to cut eye holes in his diaper for the next cross burning?
jacy
@joe from Lowell:
Maybe this is a secret power grab by Vitter to get Bobby Jindal deported back to India so Vitter can finally make his move to be King of All Louisiana!
singfoom
Yeah,
Immigration never did a damn thing for this country! Do they really think they can do this? Imagine the manpower required to find and deport EVERY single illegal immigrant.
C’mon you compassionless assholes of the GOP. It’s easy:
1)Announce a process for current illegal immigrants to gain citizenship. Fine them for flouting the law, get them to pay taxes (if they don’t already)
2)Announce a expiration date for that offer.
3)Make allowances for those with family members who are citizens.
4)After a suitable time period has elapsed for people to apply to the program, then start going after still illegal aliens (maybe even fine their employers)
Those are just quick ideas. There are tons of ways we could deal with this. The binary thing just won’t work for us now.
JGabriel
Sen. David Vitter (R-Pampers):
You mean like being born here? Because that’s how I got my citizenship.
.
Donut
What in the holy fukkin hell is a “resolution that would amend the Constituion”???
This is pretty god damned clear language:
There is no distinction in the god damned language about illegals. Fer fuk’s sake! I am seriously at the point where I just want these morans out of my country (again). Just go ahead and re-secede. Who needs you?? Gawd.
jibeaux
You know, I respect our laws and Constitution. And that’s why I find it deeply offensive that someone would conjure up a “resolution to amend the Constitution” that, whatever the fuck it is, is so obviously not contemplated by the Constitution. And that within that short excerpt describing said bizarro devoid-of-legal-significance resolution there are at least five immediately obvious kinds of stupid.
Persia
Remember, the Founding Fathers did no wrong, except when they were nice to those nasty brown people.
Poopyman
Explain to me how the unborn disrespect our immigration laws?
JGabriel
Yeah! Who do those fuckin’ babies think they are, disrespectin’ this great land of ours by having the unmitigated gall to be born here?
.
dmsilev
To quote the 14th,
What part of “all persons” do they refuse to understand? The “persons” part, I assume?
dms
eemom
This is utter and complete bullshit that would not even pass the “are you fucking shitting me?” test in any federal court, even if it were to pass, which it won’t.
100% teatard dick-sucking theater.
MikeJ
@Donut: What’s really interesting is that they’re leaning reaaaaal heavy on that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause.
If illegal immigrants aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US, how can we deport them?
jibeaux
@JGabriel:
That is one of the immediately obvious kinds of stupid that I found. The only way to make the citizenship process the same for everyone is that if we say anyone on Earth who wants to be a citizen can be one.
Also leaping immediately to mind, a “naturalized legal citizen” is a subset of the “legal citizens” previously selected.
Poopyman
@eemom:
No point holding back, now, This is only a blog, after all.
ET
Well I am adopted and it was closed one so am I screwed or does the fact that I was adopted and by “real” citizens make me safe?
TheMightyTrowel
As a thought experiment, it could be interesting to change to a citizenship by examination model. My method: every 2 years from 16 onwards, anyone would have the right to apply to be a citizen – they would take a free test on national history and civics, do a certain number of community service hours or military service and then swear in front of a judge that they’d serve the country well. They could then vote and have access to (say) lower tax rates. You could take the test every 2 years until you passed. It would theoretically make for a more interested and educated population.
That was a thought experiment.
In the real world in which we live and in which a certain sector of the population has unimaginable access and privilege just based on who their parents were/where they were born, it’s really fucking stupid
jibeaux
@Poopyman:
Obviously, “process” = birth canal of Real Murikan woman
Tokyokie
That seems pretty fucking clear to me, but I wasn’t blessed with the gift of insight to the minds of the Founding Fathers (and subsequent Constitution amenders) that members of the GOP claim to have.
chopper
love it when guys who wave the constitution around all the time can’t even figure out how to amend it.
suzanne
Citizenship is a privilege now, huh? I guess we better brush up on our cocksucking technique. ‘Cause I ***know*** that’s really what they mean.
In their world, brown people only get to be citizens when they’re (a) hot “spicy” Latinas, or (b) willing to be our kids’ nannies/housekeepers/landscapers for insultingly low wages.
cyd
I would go further, make this law retroactive, and welcome our Native American overlords.
Sophist
Damned activist legislators! Stop litigating from the rostrum!
Calouste
“unless at least one parent is a legal citizen, legal immigrant, active member of the Armed Forces or a naturalized legal citizen.”
Shall we count how many mistakes and redundancies there are in that sentence?
1) There are no legal citizens, in the same sense as there are no illegal citizens.
2) There is no difference between legal citizens and naturalized legal citizens (the sole exception is the presidency).
3) You can’t be a member of the Armed forces unless you are a citizen or a legal immigrant.
4) It not only strips citizenship from the children of undocumented people, it also strips citizenship from the children of people who are in the US legally, namely non-immigrant visa holders. I doubt it is an accident in Paul’s mind that that would affect, amongst other, H1-B workers from India and China and seasonal agricultural workers from Mexico.
5) Bit of a dogwhistle to put “naturalized legal citizen” last.
PeakVT
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
This is where they are trying to hang their
hoodshats. I think I’ve read elsewhere that this phrase was meant to apply to diplomats. I have no idea if that’s true, or if the phrase has any significant meaning at all.Thoughtcrime
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/08/deporting-undocumented-workers-children :
In 2007, Pete Domenici, the former Republican Senator of New Mexico, took to the Senate floor to recall the day in 1943 when his mother was arrested by US agents for being an undocumented immigrant. “By evening, my poor mother was released because she had a good lawyer. A lot of people don’t have that, and we know what happens to them under our laws.” From the New York Times:
Mr. Domenici said he decided to tell his story when the hostile rhetoric about illegal immigrants started to boil. He said he wanted to remind his fellow Republicans that the sons and daughters of this century’s illegal immigrants could end up in the Senate one day, too. “I wasn’t trying to impress anybody,” he said of his story. “I think it just puts a little heart and a little soul into this.”
Domenici went on to serve as senator for 36 years.
Jager
My mother did years of research on both sides of our family. On her father’s side no problem, first ancestor was here in 1716. On her mother’s side, her grandmother showed up at 3 from Wales, wasn’t naturalized, but some how voted for decades, hmmm. Big trouble on my dad’s side of the family the earliest ancestors, 2 brothers, jumped ship in New Orleans in the 1850’s, wandered around the west and finally show up on the tax rolls in Iowa 20 years later, as property owners, married with kids. Totally illegal entry, right? Hope this isn’t retroactive!
Ash Can
@chopper: They love the real Constitution, not those fakey tacked-on parts about citizenship rights and voting rights and church-and-state separation and all that ersatz crap.
Calouste
PeakVT:
Yep, that phrase is meant to apply to diplomats. One of the other effects of “not being subject to jurisdiction” is that you can’t get charged or convicted of any crimes. Diplomats get expelled instead, and I guess that Paul’s solution would be for non-diplomats would be that if they are not subject to jurisdiction, they don’t have the protection of the law either.
gwangung
or hot exotic Geisha mamas.
Nutella
@ET:
No. If you are not also naturalized you could be deported like this adoptee.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Poopyman:
They sneak past the walls of our Shining City on a Hill using Trojan Wombs.
Beware of
Greeksagricultural workers, housekeepers and food industry slaves bearing gifts.I think Homer said something like that once.
JGabriel
It’s probably a good idea at this point to remember why the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was added: to prevent the South from disenfranchising blacks from citizenship on the grounds that their parents weren’t born here.
Is it ironic that Vitter and Rand want to do the same thing to the children of today’s undocumented immigrants, or is it just traditional?
.
Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen
Now the TeaTards will think the Constitution can be amended by resolution. I look forward to Paul and Vitter dodging angry supporters who can’t understand why they don’t just resolve away all the other parts of the Constitution they don’t like.
FlipYrWhig
I presume that the intent is for this whole stupid effort to get slapped down for being farcically stupid, then run ads about how Republicans are being subjugated by The Democrat Party and its henchmen, Activist Judges.
geg6
For people who claim to venerate the Constitution above all people and things, these guys sure don’t know anything about it.
There is a clearly written, easy to comprehend process for amending the Constitution written right into it. By the Sainted Founders, no less. Article V makes it plain as day. And, no. A “resolution” is not among the allowable ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution
No One of Consequence
WTF? (the traditional interpretation, not Win The Future…)
Is somehow a naturalized citizen inferior to a natural-born citizen?
I take offense to that. My wife is a naturalized citizen.
In this country we don’t have classes of citizenry as far as government should be concerned. Leave that to the socio-economic sphere. FFS. The only thing my wife should not be able to be or attain is the Presidency. By law that is. By pragmatism, well that is a whole other sad form of debate.
Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen
@geg6: See also the Holy Bible.
JGabriel
geg6:
Ah, but you can see the response already, can’t you?
.
kindness
Maybe we can rustle up that video of School House Rock on the Constitutional Amendment section. Vitter & Rand apparently only saw the How a Bill Becomes a Law section.
I was disappointed there was less diaper & aquabudda hilarity than those two together ought to get.
Dan
Emma Lazarus said it best:
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Maybe we should rename the Statue of Liberty the Statue of Get Back Where You Came From….
feebog
@jibeaux:
A resolution to amend the constitution is kind of like an icon on your computer screen. It is a handy shortcut so you will not be bothered by all those stupid voting requirements in both houses of congress and three quarters of the states.
PhoenixRising
@JGabriel:
Yeah, it’s coincidence.
In other news, a Congressional resolution that isn’t an amendment because it simply legislates the meaning of a few sentences of the Constitution? Huh?
There’s a whole ‘nother branch of government dedicated to telling us what the Constitution means, which I understand these yahoos don’t like much, but give me a break. 8th grade wasn’t THAT hard.
fucen tarmal
“citizenship is a privilege”
well don’t that beat fuck-all.
why not amend the constitution to outlaw rights, make the new one enumerate privileges.
geg6
@JGabriel:
And then, of course, we have school them in Marbury v. Madison, I guess.
Annelid Gustator
@MikeJ: Moreover, how can any jurisdiction *ahemarizona* criminalize their presence?
gbear
I think I’m going to send my bank a resolution to ammend my bank balance. Why didn’t I think of that years ago!?
1. Poverty
2. Resolution to Ammend
3. Profit!
Sputnik
Wow, for people who claim to really love the Constitution, they don’t really respect it or get how it works, do they?
catclub
The part of the 14th amendment that is NOT usually quoted is also relevant – to the TIDOS crowd. If THAT part could be repealed we could be sued for reparations by slaveholders – and presumably their heirs.
Reparations to the right (white) people!
The Moar You Know
And they are wrong. The 14th Amendment was EXPLICITLY written so that the children of non-citizens, i.e. slaves, would become citizens.
Sucks to be Vitter and Paul, but there is no way to get around the intent, or for that matter, the language, which is about as unambiguous as anything put in the Constitution.
jl
The rationale for the amendment quoted in the post makes no sense. What the amendment proposes to do concerns whether the kids who were born here will be citizens, not about the status of the parents. The kid has very little say about what country it is born in.
They cannot even make basic sense in their blurbs.
This vile proposal would eventually create a legally sanctioned two class society in the U.S., and fundamentally change the nature of the country.
If this mess moves forward, time to call your Senators and tell them to everything, and I mean everything, to stop this disaster, or no more money or votes for them ever.
Mnemosyne
@JGabriel:
People always accuse Dennis G. of exaggerating the influence that Confederate thinking still has on the right wing, but at times like these I suspect he’s understating it.
Mnemosyne
@jl:
Seems awfully similar to another part of our past to me. At what point do we decide that American-born children of illegal workers can be bought and sold on the open market?
ruemara
How far back will this unamendment amendment go? I could support it if it rids us of these troublesome Congresspersons.
Jay C
@singfoom:
These proposals have already been floated, singfoom: unless I’m drastically mistaken, a semi-rational proposal like this was the mainstay (plus a less-than-optimal “guest worker” proposal) of ex-President Bush’s immigration plan a few years ago, and was, IIRC, shot down by Dubya’s GOP pals on the same grounds they are using today: that anything short of a Kristallnacht style roundup is unacceptable, as it could possibly be construed as that ultimate horror – an AMNESTY!!!!; i.e. it might leave some significant number (>1) of brown people in the country; and thus, destroy America.
Dee Loralei
@sal: Yay! I’m safe! My family got here in 1630. Hahaha I’m an American and the teabirchers aren’t! Neeners!
jl
@ruemara: I say make it retroactive. It is an amendment to the Constitution, so I guess they can put in something that says wherever else it talks about ex post facto whatevers, it don’t count.
Make it go all the way back.
We’ll get them white ethnics out of here one way or the other. They’re the ones that started messing up the joint. Damned Irishmen!
Oh, wait, I just remembered, I’m part Irish.
Ok, except for the Irish.
Platonicspoof
On C-SPAN2 they just televised the vote on Senate Resolution 28, which eliminates secret holds to block legislation and nominations. It passed 90 to 4.
Senators DeMint, Ensign, Lee and Paul voted against public disclosure.
Senate now voting on S. Res. 8 to reduce votes needed to break filibuster.
sal
Also, the argument that folks born here shouldn’t be citizens, but corporations should. Hmmm.
The Moar You Know
@Platonicspoof: Sounds like President DeMint just got demoted. I am curious as to the six are who did not vote.
singfoom
@Jay C:
JC,
Thanks. I was aware that the failed legislation contained certain provisions like those I suggested.
It’s just so fucking stupid
You cannot realistically deal with the complex issue of illegal immigration in this country with a roundup. Those illegal workers are key to our economy. If they just disappeared, we’d be fucked up.
Again, reality is not the friend of the GOP. And the GOP is no friend of nuance.
gbear
Great news! Ensign must have thought they were voting to block secret holds on female staffers.
GregB
The Tea-bag fucks think that they have the right to government secrecy.
What a pack of fraudulent assholes.
Paris
If these children are not citizens of the country where they are born, what is their citizenship? Do they have a country?
athena
Loving the Germany-derived Paul and the France-derived Vitter rewriting the Constitution to deprive folks born of mothers from other parts of the world the rights inscribed in the document they seem to fetishize. Maroons.
Anne Laurie
@jl:
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, warned that the unassimilatable German immigrants in the Ohio Valley were only going to be a drag on democracy. If you look at people like Mean Jean Schmitt and that Iott ‘Nazi reenactor’ dude, you might concede his point.
Platonicspoof
And S. Res. 8 (as of Jan. 5th) defeated 12 to 84., S. Res. 10 being voted on (rules on time allowed for debate).
Mnemosyne
@Nutella:
That story was just bizarre to me. It’s only within the last decade that adopted children became citizens automatically? Everyone else who was adopted before 2004 is totally screwed unless they went through the naturalization process?
This is like those stories you keep hearing about old folks in the South who can’t prove that they’re American citizens because they were born at home and never had a birth certificate, so they have their Social Security benefits taken away even though they’ve lived and worked here (and paid into SS) their whole lives.
(edited to correct date)
asiangrrlMN
What? This is an outrage! The fact that they would even suggest this is–wait, hold on a second.
::rereads excerpt::
Oh, kids of legal immigrants are OK? Never mind then. I got mine, I don’t give a shit about you. /conservative.
In the real world, what the fuck? Seriously? This is what they want to focus on now? It’s gonna be a long two years.
Kyle
Sen. David Vitter, R-La. is introducing a “resolution that would amend the Constitution” to deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States “unless they wear diapers while being serviced by hookers.”
“For too long, our nation has seen an influx of diaper-less scary brown people entering our country at an escalating rate, and this is a major contributor to the decline of the American diaper industry,” said Sen. Vitter. “Closing this loophole will not prevent them from becoming citizens, but will ensure that they have to go through the same mistress-dominatrix humiliation as I enjoy.”
“The Constitution is sacred, except the parts where it benefits people I don’t like,” he added.
hmd
I’d like to point out what a PITA this would be for everyone. With this bill, it is no longer adequate to have a birth certificate to prove citizenship, you need that PLUS proof that your parents were citizens or legal immigrants too.
I’m sure that people whose skin is just so would not be asked for this as often. But you know, for lots of official and not-so-official purposes you still need to prove your citizenship no matter what. Every time you go to a new job you need to fill out that I-9 and if this passed, the birth certificate would no longer be an option.
Pretty much everyone would need to get a passport for simple convenience, and doing that would be even more of a pain than it currently is.
BC
Just love how the GOPers’ beliefs trump any reality. Boehner doesn’t “believe” the CBO numbers on health reform. Ideology for them all the way. Wish we had a functioning political party that would point this out, but unfortunately all we have are the ideological GOP and the clueless Democrats.
Ecks
@El Cid: No, the first amendment exists to them too, though it obviously only covers right wing speech (proof: Tell one of them to shut up, and they will shout “first amendment” like they have a clue what it says.)
Mike G
@Dan:
Emma Lazarus said it best:
Or, as Ronald Reagan called her in a speech, “Emmett Lazarus”.
There are several government documents in existence where he signed his name as “Reagan Reagan”.
But no, he couldn’t possibly have had Alzheimer’s while he was in office.
Calouste
@asiangrrlMN:
Kids of legal immigrants are ok, kids of legal visa holders not in the wording of Paul and Vitter. You better check with your parents when they exactly got their Green Card.
Ash Can
@Mike G: This really does say a lot, not just about him but about the members of his administration as well.
Brachiator
Can we revoke the citizenship of employers who hire illegal immigrants, deliberately underpay them or otherwise exploit them? I mean, fair is fair.
Oh yeah, and can we revoke the citizenship of those whose parents or grandparents did not qualify under these rules, but who came to the US after the date the 14th Amendment was ratified?
I mean, fair is fair.
Platonicspoof
Some overview by David Waldman at Congress Matters in
Senate Rules Reform Update:
May be better that I go take down my happy holidays lights before I get shunned by the neighbors.
Evinfuilt
Trying to decide if I’d be citizen under their description. Best to be safe and apply for citizenship.
Hold in, I’m white, so I’m sure they didn’t mean me. Though I would like them to kick out McCain for not applying for citizenship after moving here.
MBL
@Mike G:
I’m curious: do you have a source for this?
(That sentence usually means “I don’t believe you and I bet the answer’s no!”; in this case, it means “That’s really interesting and I hope the answer’s yes.”)
Sad_Dem
Closing loopholes is good, unless it’s a tax loophole, in which case it’s bad, because it’s making us uncompetitive in the global marketplace. Anyway, it’s good to know that the U.S. Constitution has loopholes.
Mnemosyne
@hmd:
No problem at all. They’ll just have different birth certificates issued for the different kinds of babies. What do you mean, “Who’s going be checking up on the parents’ citizenship to make sure the baby gets the right one?” Can’t you tell just by looking at them?
Naah, there’s no way that could possibly become a clusterfuck. Look how well Iraq worked out!
Brian
David Vitter is mad because anchor babies stole his diapers.
Caz
You know, I initially though this blog would offer comments from both sides, but I quickly realized it’s just a collection of progressives patting themselves on the back and seeing who can come up with the biggest insults for conservatives. It’s quite entertaining. This blog is like a little island of progressivism that operates in its own little fantasy world of “we’re perfect, you are assholes.”
It’s entertaining, but pathetically desperate, hateful, and ignorant.
You people really need to get a grip on reality. So who has the best insult for me?? lol.
Hal
Amazing to contrast this opinion with the absolute limitlessness (in the eyes of conservatives) of the 7th amendment? 15 round clips for everybody!
Jesse
@Caz: You know, when assholes do asshole things, they deserve to be called assholes. Introducing that resolution is a dick move, and there aren’t two reasonable sides to the underlying issue. Paul and Vitter are trolling the country with this.
“Comments from both sides” ? So, let me get this straight, that’s the traditional-interpretation-of-the-amendment-going-back-to-when-it-was-fucking-passed side, and who else?
Mnemosyne
@Caz:
Interesting how you know that this maneuver can’t be defended on legal, moral or historical grounds, so you have to complain that we’re not talking about a mythical “other side” that you can’t even articulate yourself.
Go ahead. Give us a defense of ending birthright citizenship that doesn’t circle back to “OMG the Messicans are taking over!”
PhoenixRising
@Mnemosyne:
Yeah, you get it. It was not so easy to get fixed, either. Many phone calls and petitions and visits to Congresscritters and etc. had to be invested to make citizenship automatic for children adopted abroad. That effort followed a number of cases in which US raised teens were deported after pleading to misdemeanors, while the other kids who spit on the sidewalk alongside them went off to Yale as planned. ‘Whoops my mom didn’t have $880 for a meaningless piece of paper’ became spending life in Thailand.
Worse, the process for obtaining a certificate of citizenship is thousands of dollars and your sanity. Since INS at SFO shredded the original documents we were required to submit, and of course the temp contractors’ confession in their criminal trials for doing so cannot be substituted for said original docs…trust me when I tell you that ‘they should just follow the rules’ sounds simple but is unbelievably complex.
We are both native speakers of English, and I don’t think law school was a waste of money based on the INS paperwork alone–but dammit, the rules are intentionally obscure and difficult. Crossing into Canada and coming back with another 6 months is way easier if your’e from a country we allow that privilege to. Otherwise you’re not going to have much luck. Amnesty for anyone who pays taxes would be a good start.
grandpajohn
@The Moar You Know: What really sucks is lilving in a country with the levels of fucking stupidity of the electorate that continually elects these idiots to some of the highest elected offices in this country
Benjamin Cisco (mobile)
Gonna be a long two years but I can’t wait for 2012. The beatdown should be EPIC.
mclaren
Pro tip: you cannot amend the constitution by passing a resolution.
Just as you cannot wipe out amendments to the constitution by passing a resolution. The kooks and cranks and crackpots on this blog who claim that the congressional resolution that authorized the use of force after 9/11 legalized the invasions of Iran and Afghanistan, torture, ad nauseam, are as ignorant as these clueless fools.
The Supreme Court long ago ruled, back in the 19th century, that basic amendments to the constitution cannot be altered or wiped out by passing resolutions. The constitution is the basic law of the land. You can’t erase it or alter it by passing legislation. Torture is expressly prohibited by the 8th amendment, preventive detention or extraordinary rendition or whateverthefuck you want to call it is expressly prohibited by the 5th amendment, indefinite detention is expressly prohibited by the 6th amendment and 14th amendments, going to war without declaring war is expressly prohibited by Article 1 of the constitution, and so on. If any of you people don’t like that, draft petitions to amend the constitution to remove amendments 8, 5, 6, 14, etc. Otherwise, live with ’em.
Only a constitutional amendment can alter or delete any part of the constitution.
mclaren
@Hal:
You mean the second amendment.
Katie in California
That’s *me* he’s trying to strip citizenship from, and my parents were here legally.
My parents were students when I was born. They graduated, got job offers and became legal residents, and then, in time, citizens.
I cannot believe how horrifying it is to read their bill and to know that sitting senators would happily Unperson me.
…and all the headlines covering this story say it’s about “illegals.” No, it also affects more people than that.
Bella Q
@Mnemosyne: Holy rollerskating fuck. It is exactly at times like this that I’m certain he’s understating its effect. It’s subliminal at this point for those fuckwits, but it is very, very real. They are the (barely) rebranded Confederate party.
Jebediah
@mclaren:
All of those teatard fuckwits running around loudly proclaiming their passionate love for the Constitution are also in favor of every un-Constitutional thing you listed.
If we had decent media in this country, they would never have gotten any traction at all. Oh well…
Jebediah
@Caz:
It’s a blog, dumb-ass. Whoever comments, comments. Cole is not required to find and print opposing viewpoints for the posts, much less the comments.
Well, what kind of insult do you want? Hurry up and make your choice, the Insult Window will be closing shortly, you straw-man-humping microcephalic bucket of Santorum. (Was that insulty enough?)
kay
It’s pure bigoted pandering.
I do think it’s funny that one group of conservatives is trying to change the constitution to redefine “person” more broadly, to include “at conception” and the other group is trying to delete “person”, and replace it with a complicated formula, that I guess means “citizen”.
They’re headed for a train wreck here, I would think. We’re going to need a constitutional convention, and a freaking dictionary. The two factions on the Right can duke it out. I think it’s an absolute crap-shoot whether I end up as a “person” or a “citizen”, quite frankly. We may need some new categories.
Bulworth
Is this like a presidential signing statement, which refudiates the language in the bill that the president just signed?
Also, too, this amending the Constitution without amending it sounds teh awesome!
cminus
For Caz’s sake, I can actually come up with an “other side” interpretation: At the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, the US was still expanding west along the frontier and, by today’s standards, was actively welcoming immigrants. Illegal immigration was not a problem, so the 14th Amendment didn’t take it into account. However, our current situation is outside the experience of the people who wrote the amendment, and trying to apply their words literally to a different circumstance is a recipe for poor policy.
Caz and any other supporters of the Vitter-Paul proposal are welcome to take up this argument, but should be warned that if they do so, the next words I post will be “Now, turning to the 2nd Amendment”…