OK, so long as we start with Michelle Malkin.

Another case where the Tea Partiers believe in a strict interpretation and protection of the U.S. Constitution unless and where they don't agree with it.

14th Amendment?? Ha! The only real amendments are the 2nd and 10th. Everything else was a liberal activist ploy to subvert America.

and all of those Tea Partiers and conservatives who say all they want is for government to follow the Constitution will be protesting against Hunter, right?

um, right?

um?

When all the vitriol on healthcare was coming forth, I sd it then to just wait until Immigration becomes front and center. Yall aint seen nothing yet. Just in one day we had Pat Bertroche compare illegals to dogs, then this.

Get ready for a really hot summer!

Wouldn't that mean that only Native Americans can stay here?

Good old Great-Gandad Reagan just walked across the border from Canada -- so when do we deport the remains of Saint Ronnie of Simi Valley.

The never ending hate and ignorance from today's republicans is so depressing. It's like being endlessly slimed with a toxic substance that never washes off.

I know we all love to use the "why do right wingers hate America?" snark, but really, why *do* right wingers hate America? They hate the Constitution, and they hate our country's system of government that the founders devised. Hell, they hate America enough to have tried succeeding from it, starting an extended bloody war in the process. From all I can see, they would do it all over again if they could.

So now, who is trying to shred the Constitution?

Hunter is a jackass.

They have driven off the crazy cliff. I mean really who other than old white guys and mentally unstable teabaggers are going to vote for theses guys?

He's only worried about citizens born in the US after their parents walk across a border, if you know what I mean.

I assume that's what he means, since it doesn't make sense that some fetus walked across the border. Those fetuses are non-ambulatory, as a rule.

Christians

The least we can do, before we deport these American citizens, is have them implanted with microchips (like dogs) and then have them raped by doctors.

Once that is done, send them back to the country of their ancestors origins.

I'm snarking, but seriously, has the GOP lost its fricking mind?

What's so crazy about this? The Constitution only applies to me and people I like. People I don't like or don't know- fuck 'em, they're on their own.

johnr the question isn't so much who is going to vote for them as are we going to get off our butts and vote against them. The voter apathy that prevents us from getting out to vote is just as much a vote for these wingnuts as the actual nuts who vote for them. If we truly hold the constitution in the highest regard we all need to exercise the right to vote and not sit idealy by and let this hateful minority take over this country.

"it's what's in our souls"

there is truly something evil and inhumane in that sick puppy's soul...

It's time for the Teabaggers to put up or shut up. Being required to show your "papers" to the police is exactly the kind of unconstitutional government intrusiveness they claim to be against. As SNL said "It may be a dry fascism, but it's still fascism".

They say they're not just a bunch of racists? Prove it. If they don't object to this law, they will simply prove that it's all about race.

"... It takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It's what's in our souls. ..."

duncan hunter doesn't have a soul. he auctioned his on eBay.

Ready the bug spray

Get ready for a really hot summer!

Which was why we elected Barack Obama...
Here come the cockroaches with their "white is right" signs...

And their children's children, and their children...
O.k., Representative Hunter, get on the bus. Only native Americans allowed to stay.

Well then that means we all have to go back to europe! The only citizens here are the Native Americans.

Lets call it what it is, trying to do away with "anchor babies". Let's deport John McCain, because you know he wasn't actually born in the US.

And when he says "It's what's in our souls," of course he means "It's the pigmentation of our skin."

Maybe he could just have the President kill them

Before these children are deported, Teabaggers should have to view them on an ultrasound and hear their heartbeats.

Sadly, the only thing that's new about this is that he's isn't saying we should change the law to do this, we should just do it.

It's common enough in wingnut circles that they have a term for it. When they talk about wanting to get rid of "birthright citizenship," this is what they mean.

It doesn't make any sense, because it's all about resentment. They're convinced that it's commonplace for illegal immigrants to deliberately have "anchor babies" so they can stay in the country, and they don't care how much of the Constitution they have to burn down to stop it.

Seems to me that Duncan is only an idiot (in this case) because he didn't make his suggestion in an intelligent manner.
If our borders weren't porous, wouldn't this idea already be implemented? That is, people in this country would only be those people who were in this country legally. Then once here, they could have their baby. And of course these babies would be American citizens by birthright.
This seems to be a reasonable idea.
Do we have the reverse situation in place? If my wife gives birth early while we are on vacation in Mexico, does that make my kid a Mexican citizen? Do we have to then go through the process to get our child into this country and file for citizenship? I am asking because I don't know. . .but it seems relevant. If in this example, I can walk back over the border and my child is an American citizen because both parents are citizens then it seems we can require parents to be here legally to have their kids get citizenship from birthright.
Now of course, this would have to be implemented going forward. Deporting kids born before such a new rule is an idiotic suggestion; so maybe that is why everyone is calling Duncan an idiot.

"Wouldn't that mean that only Native Americans can stay here?

Well, Native Americans' ancestors walked across the land bridge from Siberia, so.... dunno.

I definitely think this is a good argument for getting all real Americans implanted with microchips. That way, the cops would find it a lot easier to leave us law-abiders alone and focus on catching the bad guys.

After all, why would anyone leave their own country unless they were planning to start a ruckus somewhere else? That's the only reason a REAL American leaves America, and I can only imagine it's the same with everyone else. Foreigners are always trouble.

"HOUSE REPUBLICAN CALLS FOR DEPORTATION OF U.S. CITIZENS"

It's on a different scale, and for different aims (terra!), but Obama supports killing, without trial, US citizens with Predator drones.

Deporting the children of illegal aliens has already been in effect for years, it is just done "legally" with their consent - sort of. In fact there are plenty of US citizens in ICE custody, all of them children of illegal aliens.

If you go back in the archives of this blog or read this article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/14/citizen.children/index.html) you will see that there are organizations devoted to the care of such children. In the case of most of these children they don't have the resources or the help to remain in the States. They have to make the decision (assuming they are old enough to make a decision) to go with the family and live in poverty or stay and ???

Nothing new here.

"It's what's in our souls" will be the motto tacked with nails of avarice to the prow of Charon's boat, the USS Mission Accomplished, as he poles Hunter across the River Stix.

This is good news for autochthonos-Americans.

I expect that this seemed logical and compassionate to Hunter. Suppose you deport parents. The children of these deportees are legally American citizens because they have been born in the United States and meet the criteria for citizenship. You can either deport the parents and allow the children to stay without their parents, or you can keep the family together by voting all of them. Or you can let the entire family stay, which is my choice. This is a dilemna, and because Hunter doesn't believe in any sort of amnesty he has made what I think is the wrong choice. He would probably say that it is in the interest of illegal aliens in this case to immediately have children so that all of them can stay in the US, but I still say he has made the wrong choice while admitting he has a point to some degree.

Christopher
Christopher Hobe Morrison

@jvwalt: but, wait, I have freckles! What to do? What to do? So *confusing*.

Damn it, this guy wants to deport my grandkids!!!

So where does this all stop. Are we to include Cubans, Philippe, Italian, and Greek and any other persons in our ability to stop anybody we don�t like? What about those pesky Canadians, they sit right on our northern border. Lets get them too!

I am a 6th generation Californian. My great-great grandmother was born about 1 hour north of where I live today. Only back then California was called Mexican Territory and my family was the native people.

Well he is obviously lying he talks about what is in his soul,but it is obvious he has no soul

I suspect that Rep. Hunter's real purpose in saying these things is the repeal of the 14th amendment. (Assuming he is that aware, of course, something that I probably should not assume.)

"Section. 1. 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."

Not only does the 14th amendment give these children citizenship, but it also protects citizens against the arbitrary search and seizure that would occur with the AZ law that demands LEOs stop anyone who looks foreign. repealing it also gets rid of that pesky "due process" thingy that makes the states apply the constitution to their citizens.

They prefer the perjorative "anchor baby" rather than the legal term: US citizen. Calling them names helps them pave over their clear constitional status.

All the BS in the world about our "constitutional rights being taken away..yadda yadda" are proven insincere by the conservative contortions over immigration.

Choice 1) let the illegal immigrants stay
Choice 2) break up the family and leave the citizen here
Choice 3) send the minor child to live with his parents

No choice is perfect.

Dr Biobrain: ...this is a good argument for getting all real Americans implanted with microchips.

Real Americans are already implanted with the Lord Jesus Christ's Microchip of Righteousness, otherwise known as lily-white skin. One need only to wave your eye-stalks across a man's face to know whether or not he is a Real American. So save your scientific, secular microchips for the illegal immigrants and dogs and aborted babies streaming across our borders. My Holy Microchip ensures that I'm in a State of Grace. And that state is Arizona!

Amen.

Indeed, if American officials were planning to deport American citizens, where would the children be expected to go?

Back to the country of the origin of one of their parents (if they are different).

This has been another edition of Simple Answers for Simple Questions

Anyone who thinks there will be bipartisan compromise on immigration is crazy. Obama, like on other issues will take the center-right pragmatist approach (probably a road to citizenship with big fines and a heavy lockdown of the border) which will force the GOP, as a way of differentiated themselves to argue for "temporary mass deportations".

Whatever long term damage that does to the GOP is irrelevant to them, they only can see what's right in front of them, and what's in front of them is the nightmare of a triumphant Barack Obama.

This is bad.

I like the guy mostly and he is my representative, but

THIS IS BAD.

I'm reading these posts and it occurs to ME that if we ship all these 'tea party types' to some country of their choosing that they can REDO then those of us that choose to stay in our imperfect union will have a lot less hassle.

@keith

Keith, lemme try and help you out here, on the chance you're asking these questions in good faith.

In the hypothetical case of your wife giving birth prematurely while in Mexico City, whether or not said baby is a Mexican citizen depends on the laws of MEXICO, and those of the U.S have absolutely no bearing on that, although TREATIES Mexico has with the U.S likely would. I don't know if Mexico has birthright citizenship or not (I know for a fact that France and Germany do NOT) but that's how it would work.

Approaching it from the American side, no, you would NOT need to go about filing for citizenship or anything. I believe the current state of U.S law is, if you have one parent who is a citizen, you get citizenship automatically. You could be born in Mexico, in Cuba, on the moon, in Dimension X of the Lizard People, wherever.

Key statement in my previous paragraph; U.S -law-. Bloodline citizenship is not, as far as I know, established in the federal constitution anywhere, although I think some state constitutions have it. This means the Congress could, were it so inclined, change things so that if you're born abroad to U.S citizens, you are SOL. It would be STUPID, but it could be DONE.

As far as requiring people to be here legally for their kids to have birthright citizenship, you are wrong; we can't do this, 'can't' in the sense of 'this is unconstitutional.' Period. See the numerous posts referencing Amendment 14. It can't be changed by any act short of a constitutional amendment. Oh, I suppose theoretically you could do some dicking around with statutes defining things like who the U.S has jurisdiction over, but that would open up a whole different can of worms I'm not really qualified to comment on.

I note the 1898 SCOTUS decision, however: some argue from the following language (my bold) which Steve did not quote (you should have, Steve, on principle):

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.

The "jurisdiction" clause may imply that the birth needs a jurisdictional cover, and isn't just virtually anyone who is born here. How much sense does it make to say, a baby born to a Belgian tourist who doesn't get home in time is "a US citizen"? And she was legally admitted. It is of course a separate argument, what best to do about those who are in such categories.

BTW my basic problem with the AZ law is asking people for "papers." It is humiliating to many folks, and may violate actual or implied need for cause even to ask for such evidence. However, employees and employers should be stopped from cheating on W-4s. You just can't put in a valid number if you are an illegal alien. That is fraud and can definitely be prosecuted. John Kerry (what a shame he lost, he is so smart and rather well-meaning) said essentially the same thing this morning on Imus.

Keep on going repugs! You are locking in the Hispanic vote for Dems for generations to come.

But the Goopers are for less invasive and smaller government. RIGHT!

so does that mean he should get deported because if his great-great-great-granparents come from europe then all those generations hsould become illegal. this guy is wrong. its part of the law of the us

"The "jurisdiction" clause may imply that the birth needs a jurisdictional cover, and isn't just virtually anyone who is born here."

the only people physically in the US, that are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are people with diplomatic immunity
if your hypothetical pregnant Belgian tourist robs a bank here, she can be arrested for it

@Murc & @NeilB; yes I am asking in good faith.
I like the "subject to jurisdiction" comment. Seems like we can have a fair compromise with it. Clarify it to mean "you are here legally" and you can make 'anchor babies' (as rare as they probably are) not legal but not stomp all over the 14th.
I just don't think that if I am vacationing in Bulgaria and my wife gives birth early that my child should suddenly become a Bulgarian citizen. However, if we intend to live and work there and we had already committed to being there [by following that country's stated process], then of course my child would then be a Bulgarian citizen.

Immigration is an interesting topic to me. Lots of room to debate. Porous borders doesn't seem right and a wall is even more stupid. Finding the right place in the middle to end up seems difficult to find. It is too bad that right-wingers don't seem to even want to truly debate the topic.

Any child born within the jurisdiction of the United States is, de facto and de jure, a citizen of the United States. A child born to Belgian tourist while on vacation, would be eligible to claim that citizenship upon reaching its majority. That person would have to document their birth to claim citizenship, but once the documentation was presesnted, there should be no further legal argument.
And unless Belgium allows dual citizenship, there wouldn't even be a need to renounce the Belgian citizenship, as it, from a US legal standpoint, never existed.
If one reverses the example with a US couple having a child while in Belgium, nothing would change unless Belgium DOESN'T have the equivalent to the US' "natural born" citizenship. In that case, the child would have the citizenship of the parents, in this case, US.
Basically, according to US law, where a child of US parents is born doesn't matter in regards to the child's US citizenship. The birth would, however, need to be registered at the US Embassy (or consulate?), partly so that a new passport can be issued with the child included.
I would think that the above paragraph would also apply to any child born to a single mother of US citizenship as well. It's only when one of the parents isn't a US citizen that an overseas birth starts to get complicated.

Yeah, the GOP is batshit insane. Do they really plan to dump an amendment that so many of their forefathers fought so hard to pass after the Civil War? Really, folks?

This is why I never respect GOP opinions.
Ron Christie, is this really a great party for Black people to join???

Hunter said something else in that comment which I think is as equally as frightening and ugly. He said:

"... It takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It's what's in our souls. .."

Isn't that an indictment of even legal immigration? Is my father not a proper American is one because he immigrated here from Eastern Europe? Is he suggesting, by referencing "our souls," that there is a genetic component to being an American citizen? Can someone born here to immigrant parents, illegal or otherwise, never truly be an American citizen "in their soul?" (As you might guess, being the son of an immigrant, and my wife being the daughter of immigrants, I take this quite personally.)

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was speaking extemporaneously and didn't think through what he was saying in this regard. However, on the face of it, what he is suggesting is truly ugly and, I would suggest, antithetical to what being an American is all about.

I write a blog for my son. It's just for me and him. However, I am going to share with you something I wrote on it several months ago:

"Take That Sarah Palin: It is a point of pride for me that three of your four grandparents are immigrants. Grandma grew up in France, Grandpa was born in Guatemala and grew up in Egypt and Lebanon, and Pop Pop was born in Poland and came to the United States under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. So, you can imagine how proud I was yesterday when you marched into the TV room at Grandma's and Grandpa's house, waving an American flag, chanting "I am an American" over and over."

Marler wrote: I like the guy mostly and he is my representative, but

THIS IS BAD.

Aw, come clean, Marler -- you like the guy, he's your representative and you probably voted for him, because he's a Republican and promises you those sweet, sweet tax cuts.

"This is bad?" What are you going to do about it, Marler, vote for a Democrat in the next election? Suuuuuure.

Shame on you, Marler.

Mr. Benen, you forget that to the Republicans, the Constitution is "a goddamned piece of paper".

Frankly, after Cheney and Co. decided wiretapping and torture were kosher, Hunter's latest defecation on our nation's foundation is pretty tame.

Ain't it great how desensitized we are to surrendering our rights?

right.windows optimizing is very important

Do you even speak English? Seriously, wall of text crits me for 99999k.