Equating women with farm animals

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Jen Phillips

Several Republican Congressmen, including Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (KY), and Lindsey Graham (SC) have been calling for revisions or hearings on the 14th Amendment, which grants US citizenship to any child born on its soil. Even Arizona's John McCain (who was born in Panama, by the way) has agreed, if reluctantly, that having Congressional hearings on the 14th would be a good thing. I might believe they were genuinely concerned about the Constitution (rather than attracting a conservative base for upcoming elections) if it weren't for the virulent racism and sexism underlying the statements of many with their eyes on the 14th.

Case in point: According to an email circulated by Arizona state Senator Russell Pearce, undocumented immigrant women don't "give birth" or "have a baby" or "start a family": they "drop" a child. "If we are going to have an effect on the anchor baby racket, we need to target the mother. Call it sexist, but that's the way nature made it. Men don't drop anchor babies, illegal alien mothers do," read the email. One California activist called it "invasion by birth canal" and Sen. Lindsey Graham said that: "They come here to drop a child. It's called 'drop and leave.'"

The use of the word "drop" by 14th Amendment revisionists is deliberate. Not only does one "drop" anchor, the word "drop" is also used when animals give birth. Mares will "drop" a foal, for example, or you can buy a "drop calf": one that's been taken from its mother shortly after birth. Women only "drop" a baby when the fetus descends into the pelvis, or they physically lose their grasp of on an infant. Equating women, regardless of their legal status, with farm animals is just plain offensive.

The theme of controlling which babies get to be US citizens and which don't has an unsettling connotation of regulating which women get to give birth here and which don't. The idea of immigrant women using their fecundity as a weapon isn't just a conspiracy theory, either. Arizona's J.D. Hayworth, who is running against John McCain, has contended that women from all over the world are using their fertility as a weapon, craftily timing their pregnancies so they can give birth in the US to a "new birthright citizen [who] will have access to a phalanx of American benefits, courtesy of you and me and other American taxpayers." In a similar vein, Ron Paul said in 2008 that "we should not be awarding automatic citizenship to children born here minutes after their mothers illegally cross the border." Rep. Gohmert (R-Tex.) fears these pregnant immigrants may be literal terrorists: "They would have young women, who became pregnant, would get them into the United States to have a baby... And then they would turn back where they could be raised and coddled as future terrorists. And then one day, 20, 30 years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life."

Twenty to thirty years? Talk about running a long con. Luckily for politicians, elections are right around the corner. I'm with David Graham at Newsweek who doesn't think politicians are serious about repealing the 14th, but they would very much like to get some of the good conservative PR calling for hearings on it will garner. And even if they are serious, they have a very long and ugly road. Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez told Newsweek, "It seems inconsistent to me that politicians who are pro-life and pro-family are also pro-deportation for newborns…"

Jen Phillips is an assistant editor at Mother Jones. For more of her stories, click here or follow her on Twitter, @the_hip_hapa.

link

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Idiots. The 14th Amendment DOES NOT Allow just anyone born on American soil to become an American citizen. Historical illiteracy is amazing among these jerk offs.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Idiots. The 14th Amendment DOES NOT Allow just anyone born on American soil to become an American citizen. Historical illiteracy is amazing among these jerk offs.

If only the Supreme Court Justices of past and present had your legal grasp of the Constitution.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If only the Supreme Court Justices of past and present had your legal grasp of the Constitution.

Anyone who has ruled differently is/would be an idiot.

Read the hearings regarding the 14th, read what the actually presenter said about the 14th amendment.

It's pure idiocy if someone thinks it entitles some dumb #### foreigner who thinks sitting here to pop out their little brat is going to give it citizenship.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Anyone who has ruled differently is/would be an idiot.

Read the hearings regarding the 14th, read what the actually presenter said about the 14th amendment.

It's pure idiocy if someone thinks it entitles some dumb #### foreigner who thinks sitting here to pop out their little brat is going to give it citizenship.

Of course, Paul. The world was graced when entered it. We've all been waiting for you to lead us out of our ignorance.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Of course, Paul. The world was graced when entered it. We've all been waiting for you to lead us out of our ignorance.

It's not my fault you're illiterate either.

[^_^ 5,021]

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to overturn US Supreme Court rulings that held, in the Dred Scott decision, that blacks who were "imported into this country and sold as slaves," as well as their descendants, could not become citizens of the United States. In the debate over the 14th Amendment in 1866, one Senator asked "Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?" and received the answer, yes, "The children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens."

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=1024_0_2_0

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to overturn US Supreme Court rulings that held, in the Dred Scott decision, that blacks who were "imported into this country and sold as slaves," as well as their descendants, could not become citizens of the United States. In the debate over the 14th Amendment in 1866, one Senator asked "Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?" and received the answer, yes, "The children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens."

http://migration.ucd...p?id=1024_0_2_0

Don't try to persuade Paul with logic and reason. His brain is lacquered with teflon.

[Nagishkaw 510]

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to overturn US Supreme Court rulings that held, in the Dred Scott decision, that blacks who were "imported into this country and sold as slaves," as well as their descendants, could not become citizens of the United States. In the debate over the 14th Amendment in 1866, one Senator asked "Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?" and received the answer, yes, "The children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens."

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=1024_0_2_0

Immigrant is the key word there. Someone who is recognized as the United States and no longer within the jurisdiction of their home country. However an illegal crossing the border and popping our her little brat is still within the jurisdiction of her home country. She never came in here through proper channels. The same goes with "birth tourism." They are not coming here to live and immigrate, they are popping in, popping out a baby, and then leaving.

The co-author Senator Jacob specifically said that foreign born persons in the United States are not entitled to citizenship because they do not fall within its jurisdiction.

[^_^ 5,021]

An illegal immigrant who kills someone in the U.S. goes to jail in the U.S. How are they not under our jurisdiction?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Immigrant is the key word there. Someone who is recognized as the United States and no longer within the jurisdiction of their home country. However an illegal crossing the border and popping our her little brat is still within the jurisdiction of her home country. She never came in here through proper channels. The same goes with "birth tourism." They are not coming here to live and immigrate, they are popping in, popping out a baby, and then leaving.

The co-author Senator Jacob specifically said that foreign born persons in the United States are not entitled to citizenship because they do not fall within its jurisdiction.

Those living withing the jurisdiction of our laws, are also protected by those laws, regardless of citizenship status. You're being incredibly daft to not even understand that basic principle. The Supreme Court has said this much on many different cases, including the notorious Prop 187 in California. But I doubt any logical argument is going to penetrate that teflon brain of yours.

Edited August 4, 2010 by El Buscador

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Those living withing the jurisdiction of our laws, are also protected by those laws, regardless of citizenship status. You're being incredibly daft to not even understand that basic principle. The Supreme Court has said this much on many different cases, including the notorious Prop 187 in California. But I doubt any logical argument is going to penetrate that teflon brain of yours.

Logical argument is original intent. That is the key. Not what some activist judge says.

I'll readily argue you any day on original intent, which is what matters.

You don't get to twist an amendment to the constitution to your liking just because you don't like what it originally meant. You need new legislation to do that. Anything outside of that is judicial activism.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Logical argument is original intent. That is the key. Not what some activist judge says.

I'll readily argue you any day on original intent, which is what matters.

You don't get to twist an amendment to the constitution to your liking just because you don't like what it originally meant. You need new legislation to do that. Anything outside of that is judicial activism.

You don't know sh!t about original intent. At least if you're going to make that kind of argument, you could back it up with legal opinions written on it, but you don't. It's just you and your understanding of constitutional law.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

An illegal immigrant who kills someone in the U.S. goes to jail in the U.S. How are they not under our jurisdiction?

Pay close attention:

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.

A person is always first and foremost under the jurisdiction of their home country. It's why we usually extradite criminals we catch in the United States with countries we have an agreement to do so with. They might be here, but they are under the jurisdiction of their home country.

The same goes when you are visiting the United States. You are "within" our jurisdiction (which I'll touch on below) but you are not "subject to" our jurisdiction.

The same goes if you're a US Citizen who is visiting another country. You're still 'subject to' our jurisdiction as a US Citizen, but you're within a jurisdiction of another nation who has their own laws and rules that you must abide by as well. They can so choose to let you have the same rights as their citizens do or not depending on the nation and their laws.

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.

Now see here, it's purposefully worded differently. The wording says that if you're sitting within the United States, then we will offer you the same protections under the law as we do our citizens. So if we arrest you, you still have your 4th and 5th amendment rights.

So someone can't just break into your car without a warrant or probable cause, just like a citizen as well. You have rights that cannot be infringed upon. It we arrest you though, it's likely that we will try and deport you though, as you are not 'subject to' our jurisdiction anyway, and we really don't want you to be. It's why you're sent back to your home country and not just pushed off anywhere.

You don't know sh!t about original intent. At least if you're going to make that kind of argument, you could back it up with legal opinions written on it, but you don't. It's just you and your understanding of constitutional law.

Legal opinions? I've pointed to what the damn author said out loud on the senate floor plenty of times.