creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Miguel Perez
Miguel Perez
7 Feb 2012
Romney: The DREAM Latino Unifier

In our public schools, we taught them to be civic minded and to exercise their rights as Americans. There … Read More.

31 Jan 2012
Snake Oil Peddlers

It takes a lot of gall to defend either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney in the Hispanic community nowadays. And yet,… Read More.

24 Jan 2012
My Mother Wouldn't Let Me Vote for Gingrich

When my mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, back in the mid-'90s, Newt Gingrich was trying to take away … Read More.

Birthright Citizenship or Opportunistic GOP Demagoguery

Share Comment

Just when you think there is nothing Republican congressional leaders could do to further alienate the GOP from Latinos and immigrant voters, when so many claim faith in Christian values that could not conceivably allow them to be even more vicious to their fellow human beings, when their alleged commitment to the unborn and family values would prevent them from bashing pregnant women and children, out they come with another Draconian measure that makes the others seem mild.

Their inhumanity has no limits, and neither does their opportunistic demagoguery!

Their latest circus show — for the consumption of right-wing extremists — is their idea to deny U.S. citizenship to the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.

They are against illegal immigrants, yet they are promoting a change that would create many more illegal immigrants from the moment they are born! They complain that many immigrants are unwilling to assimilate into U.S. society, yet they oppose birthright citizenship, which is the key factor promoting assimilation. In an Internet discussion, one of their xenophobic constituents actually put it in biblical terms. "Illegal begets illegal," he wrote.

It goes against everything they allegedly stand for, but if it's politically expedient, if it will help them rally extremists and raise money, they appear to be saying "what the heck?" They have no principles!

You always hear them bragging about how they are the ultimate and purist defenders of the U.S. Constitution. But this time, they want a constitutional amendment!

Of course, they know such a cockamamie idea has absolutely no chance of going through the incredibly difficult requirements for a constitutional amendment. It has to be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratified by the legislatures of 38 states. It only has happened 17 times in 215 years — and for much more valid reasons. But they don't care! This is only an election year stunt in the circus for right-wing extremists.

Obviously, these are "leaders" who don't really care about the future of their own party. They care only about the next election and what they can gain from bashing immigrants now. Even their own political strategists and pollsters keep telling them that they are burying the future of the Republican Party, that our changing demographics are bound to catch up to them, that minority Americans are not likely to forget how cruel they have been.

But they are, at best, shortsighted. At worst, they are opportunistic politicians who put their selfish interests before those of even their own party, not to mention crucial national issues, such as real and comprehensive immigration reform.

Amazingly, the wackos in Arizona, already rejected by a federal court for trying to circumvent federal immigration law, are actually trying to ban birthright citizenship with a state law that would circumvent the Constitution.

Imagine a state determining who gets to be a U.S. citizen!

The argument for revising the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that all (with a few small exceptions) who are born in U.S. territory become American citizens, is that too many pregnant illegal immigrant women are coming here just to have U.S. citizen babies. They say the 14th Amendment provides an incentive for immigrants to enter the country illegally.

It's hogwash! Nowadays, with conditions as difficult as they are for illegal immigrants to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, they expect us to believe that hordes of pregnant women are hiking across deserts and jumping over tall fences to get into the United States. They also are selling the farce that there is a growth in "birth tourism," as if our customs agents at U.S. ports could not spot women who are close to giving birth! And so they need a constitutional amendment to then go around chasing pregnant women.

Sen. Lindsey Graham brought it up. He recently suggested that he is "considering" a constitutional amendment that already has been introduced — and mostly ignored — in the House of Representatives for several years. His cheap rhetoric then was repeated by House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, former presidential candidate John McCain and a few other prominent Republican lawmakers who — facing right-wing criticism or even more conservative challengers — have put their principles on sale and called for congressional hearings.

The overwhelming majority of the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants were conceived here, on U.S. soil. Republican leaders know this, but it's not convenient for them to acknowledge it to their xenophobic constituents. They also know that the parents of those U.S.-born American citizens are mostly hardworking people — mostly Christians, like them — who have sacrificed by working at our most menial and demeaning jobs while helping to keep our U.S. economy afloat.

But, of course, this is something they never would acknowledge, not when they are catering to the latest wave of xenophobia sweeping this country. The GOP leadership is waging that — in the November midterm elections — xenophobic voters in key states and districts will outnumber immigrants and other Americans who don't suffer from such paranoia.

Who knows? They may be right! But this definitely would be their last hurrah! Demographics are bound to walk all over them.

I say we should let these so constitutional, so Christian, so family values-oriented, so pro-life and so hypocritical politicians make their arguments against pregnant women and children. It could mark the beginning of their end as alleged public servants.

To find out more about Miguel Perez and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
I am tired of liberals claiming higher moral authority on every topic, and then using specious reasoning to argue that conservatives, specifically Christians, are inconsistent at applying their beliefs. I am even more tired of the vitriolic language used to make those you disagree with look bad. My mother always said you can tell when someone is losing an argument when he starts calling the other party names.
Liberals believe in protecting the most vulnerable among us, with the notable exception of the unborn. Allow mothers to kill babies, but suffer not a murder to be executed.
Conservative Christians do believe in the right of a fetus to live. We also believe in family values. And we believe in sin and the consequences of sin. According to your argument regarding “anchor babies,” we as a society should not jail a murder because putting a murderer in jail negatively impacts the murder's friends and family. Conservative Christians find this idea laughable. When we break a law and sin, there are consequences. Murder someone, and you are separated from your friends and family and sent to prison. Likewise, when two illegal aliens have a child in the United States, there may be consequences to their illegal immigration.
And please note conservative Christians are not against immigration as liberals like to portray. It is ILLEGAL immigration that we oppose (An aside: can you answer why identity theft is a crime when committed by a citizen, and is overlooked when committed by an illegal alien?).
If you separate the consequences of sin from Christian love, you only have half the Gospel. Christ died because there are consequences for sin. And as unfair as you may think it is, only those that believe in Christ will actually see Heaven. That's a Truth of the Gospel as sadistic as you may find it.
There is nothing in the Bible or Christian belief system that says a child becomes a citizen of a nation solely based on where a child was born. On the contrary, Jews are considered to be the children of God, but it takes more than being born to Jewish parents or in the state of Israel for a child to become a child of God. Likewise, children of Christians are not automatically saved. Each person and child has to make his own choice to follow the Lord.
Questioning a stupid policy that mystically makes a child born in the United States a citizen is not cruel as you suppose. It would be stupidity not to! I see how you think it is cruel. Illegal citizens want to use children born in the United States as a path to citizenship. They ignore the legal path and seek a backdoor. It is not compassionate to deport illegal alien parents, separating the parents from the citizen child, so we should do the compassionate thing and ignore our immigration laws and let the parents stay also. It is also not compassionate to send a murder to jail, separating him from his children. So using this logic, we should stop enforcing all laws and shut down all prisons. Using your logic, individuals are not responsible for their unlawful actions, and a society is cruel when it seeks to enforce its laws.
If the United States did get rid of the mystical citizenship path, children of illegal aliens would be deported with their parents, preserving the family unit. So this would be Christian compassion and would preserve the family unit. That's good and compassionate, right? Of course in your mind, sending illegal aliens back to their native country is apparently the same as killing them(?).
Forgive us conservative Christians if we refuse to stop believing in personal responsibility. We are not responsible when people make unwise decisions and sin. And we are not cruel when we ask our government to make and enforce laws that make sense.
Noticeably absent in your “anchor baby” diatribe was a reasonable defense of why it makes sense to grant citizenship to a child based solely on where the child was born. That is dialogue we should be having. I can only guess you don't have any reasonable arguments there and that is why instead you called us names and besmirched us.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Duck
Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:27 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Miguel Perez
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 13 Feb 2012
Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'ReillyUpdated 11 Feb 2012
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 11 Feb 2012

20 Dec 2011 If They Sought Arpaio's Support, How Can They be Our Amigos?

19 Dec 2006 Romney For President -- Of Hypocrites

16 Aug 2011 Perry at the Immigration Crossroads