Take action now:

Illegal immigration supporters, all: WaPo embarrasses self

The Washington Post has an editorial about birthright citizenship entitled "Citizens, All". Let's see if we can spot errors in their "thinking":

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has a bold idea to stop illegal immigration: Deny automatic citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. "There is general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are children of folks who come into this country illegally," he told the Washington Times. General agreement? Perhaps among Mr. Tancredo's friends in the House but not among the framers of the 14th Amendment. Indeed, any such modern consensus would have a small problem in the text of the Constitution, which is, inconveniently for anti-immigrant demagogues, not subtle on the point.

Obviously, the WaPo has a bit of a problem with their choice of words: it should be clear by now that anyone using the word "undocumented" is a politically correct fool. And, opposing illegal immigration does not equal being opposed to immigration; calling someone "anti-immigrant" is even worse, implying that they're trying to victimize immigrants.

And, it's not just the language they use. As pointed out many times in the past:

At the time the amendment was approved, the author of the clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the phrase relating to jurisdiction meant, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners...." ...In subsequent years, the courts invalidated the assurances of Howard; at this stage, an amendment to the Constitution seems the only means available to change the law...

More on that here.

Previously:

Sleazy pro-Kaine, pro-illegal immigration editorial from Washington Post

Kilgore, Kaine, the VA governor's race, and the WaPo's bias

Washington Post repeats Boston Globe smear on Minuteman Project

WaPo gives free ad to Colorado's ProgressNow outfit

Crime, illegal immigration, and media bias

Marcela Sanchez: historical facts, analysis are extremist

WaPo opposes the REAL ID Act, supports illegal immigration

The WaPo has finally overloaded my circuits

Immigration2005b · Sat, 11/12/2005 - 09:48 · Importance: 1

Fri, 11/18/2005 - 11:50
D Flinchum

"United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, which, y'know, dates from 1898, which is after the Slaughterhouse cases, and thus establishes something called a 'precedent'. Look that term up if it's unfamiliar to you." ahem

First of all, today the

Mon, 11/14/2005 - 01:53
eh

"meets up with reality"

What "reality" might that be? The "reality" that a lot of third worlders want to live in America? And to "meet up" with this "reality", I guess we ought to just let 'em, right?

"sensible"

Yeah, OK.

However, some of us don't really see the demographic destruction of America -- you know, our home -- via mass immigration as something "sensible".

"Tired"

I know the feeling.

Sun, 11/13/2005 - 22:27
D Flinchum

Two observations:
First of all, line A of section B in Article C of the Constitution might be a general statement which can be variously interpreted; however, we know pretty much what was on the minds of those who passed the 14th amendment - to make the newly freed slaves citizens. As perroazul del norte notes above, it is time to revisit this issue in the supreme court. Several prior decisions have been overturned and, of course, the circus that attends every new potential justice turns around the repeal - or not - of Roe vs Wade.

Second, now 10% of new US "citizens" are the offspring of illegal immigrants. This is a crisis. The very least power that a nation should have is to determine who is its citizens. By giving this right up, the US moves closer to anarchy as whoever can get here and breed overrules the will of the people who pay its taxes, fight its wars, and support it above all other nations.

Sun, 11/13/2005 - 12:00
perroazul del norte

"Some (like me) want the law to be sensible. Others want the law to be more strongly enforced. Its simply a choice between freedom on the one hand and immoral force on the other."
Posted by: Tired Immigrant
"Tired Immigrant's" vision of the USA is of a geographical expression rather than a sovereign nation-state. Sovereign nations have the right to decide who will enter their countries and who can become a legal resident or citizen.This is part of their freedom as a poltical community. It is also an aspect of the right of self-determination of a people.

The problem with current immigration law is that it is a crazy-quilt influenced by a myriad of business and ethnic lobbies. As sad as this is it is the system "works" in the USA today. Anyone who has looked at it believes it needs radical overhauling. My suggestion to "tired immigrant": Try Canada, their system emphasizes skills, while the US puts primary emphasis on family unification.

Sun, 11/13/2005 - 11:53
TLB
24ahead.com

I thank "ahem" for its input and, yes, anyone who repeatedly uses the euphemism "undocumented" is a PC fool, included the cited sources.

But, wait! Our leaders have gone even further: using the word "citizen" when they meant illegal alien. Here's a later version from Alberto Gonzalez: Personally I would worry about a policy that permits someone, a local law enforcement official, to use this authority somehow as a club to harass uhh they might be unlawful aliens but otherwise lawful citizens. That would be troubling. That would be troubling to the President.

Sun, 11/13/2005 - 10:48
perroazul del norte

Birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens is a moronic anachronism; virtually all developed countries have done away with it. The last country to eliminate it was Ireland. In Ireland (a democratic country-unlike the US) a popular referendum changed the law.Eighty per cent of the Irish people voted in favor.

The absurdity of the current policy is illustrated by the well-known fact that Korea has package tours to the US for pregnant Korean women wanting to give birth to US citizens. When the 19th Century decisions were made international travel was infinitely more difficult and the world's population was 1.7 billion compared to 6 billion today. The US population was 76 million compared to 300 million today.
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) was decided about the same time as PLESSY v. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Times and circumstances have changed quite a bit since then. Maybe it's time for the Supreme Court to revist WONG.

Sun, 11/13/2005 - 02:30
Ralph
ralphfnelson.blogspot.com

The Post editorial nailed it this time.

Sat, 11/12/2005 - 23:07
ahem

it should be clear by now that anyone using the word "undocumented" is a politically correct fool.

Does that include the USCIS? Or George W. Bush?

Gosh, your legal skillz are teh suX0r. And, curiously, your Freeper link doesn't mention
United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, which, y'know, dates from 1898, which is after the Slaughterhouse cases, and thus establishes something called a 'precedent'. Look that term up if it's unfamiliar to you.

Sat, 11/12/2005 - 16:05
Tired Immigrant
tired-immigrant.blogspot.com

Until immigration law meets up with reality, there will always be pressure for some to violate the law. The willingness to turn a blind eye to violations causes an insidious weakening of the rule of law.

Some (like me) want the law to be sensible. Others want the law to be more strongly enforced. Its simply a choice between freedom on the one hand and immoral force on the other.