Main Menu

California Representative wants to deport US Citizens

U. S. Representative Duncan Hunter (R – CA) said at a recent Tea Party rally that he was in favor of deporting natural born US Citizens who were the children of illegal aliens (start at 2:05 in the video below). There’s no chance that he misheard the question because he repeated it before answering the question. His justification for such extreme measures: “California’s going under.” This is not a misfire, because Hunter later confirmed his position to North County Times newspaper.

Hunter also drew applause from the crowd when he mentioned the new Arizona law to stop and verify citizens.

Hunter is quoted as saying: ‘being American wasn’t just about walking across the border. He said it’s something ‘in our souls.'” Hmmm. Do you get your soul from place or parentage?

Press coverage:

77 Responses to California Representative wants to deport US Citizens

  1. avatar
    Scott Brown April 29, 2010 at 9:09 am #

    Exactly, you derive your soul from your parentage, not from the land. I’m not sure how you would have the land coursing through your veins.

    Living in Texas and not even in a border town, illegals is a terrible problem here. The law enforcement doesn’t ask anyone anyone about their citizen status. Living in such a condition, I have no problem carrying my ID with me in order to prove that I’m here legally. AND – I support a bill in Texas similar to that of Arizona. It is to be introduced in 2011 and many of us will be supporting it 100%.

  2. avatar
    Bovril April 29, 2010 at 9:25 am #

    Ooooh fun, lets mix BS religion and politics together…..such an American thing…apart from that whole “Establishment” thing

    Scott you really really hate the Constitution don’t you all those pesky rules and laws that don’t let you sit on high and in judgement.

    I sugget you go and have a chat to your religious shaman of choice and let him/her know you have moved to an animist/ancestor worship religious belief with that idiotic statement of yours.

    In the real mainstream religious arena an individuals soul is innate to the person, a gift from God and has sod all to do with the land of your parents.

    And wel alllllll know what’s coursing through your veins

  3. avatar
    Andrew A. Gill April 29, 2010 at 9:40 am #

    Jus soli is an important element of international law that ensures that, whatever else is true, you are the citizen of one country. Without that, we would have a world full of millions of people who have no place to call their homeland.

    It is disturbing that someone would have an issue with that.

  4. avatar
    Arthur April 29, 2010 at 10:11 am #

    Scott Brown:

    What ID do you carry that proves you are here legally? Do you carry your Passport around, or some other document?

  5. avatar
    richcares April 29, 2010 at 10:13 am #

    the Texas COLB is sufficient for Passport application, just a comment on the liar now hypocrite!

  6. avatar
    Black Lion April 29, 2010 at 10:33 am #

    She must carry around her so called “long form” for ID. Because according to Scott, her COLB, which looked just like Obama’s, was not suffcient for her to get a passport. But that is predicated on her being born in the US. Since “Scott Brown” is unable to tell us what state she was born in, quite possibly she was born in Mexico, and is one of those “illegals” she has an issue with. Realistically since “Scott” has been outed as a liar her on this blog, most of what she says is worthless anyway….

  7. avatar
    train111 April 29, 2010 at 10:38 am #

    How about we deport all big-mouthed idiot politicians trying their darndest to pander to the loudest complainers!!

    train111

  8. avatar
    racosta April 29, 2010 at 11:04 am #

    why would anyone pay attention to our resident LIAR?

  9. avatar
    SvenMagnussen April 29, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    I used to live on a border town in Arizona and 100% ID check by border patrol every time you left town was standard.

  10. avatar
    BatGuano April 29, 2010 at 11:26 am #

    Exactly, you derive your soul from your parentage, not from the land.

    i find it hard to take advice on where the soul is found from someone that will intentionally perpetuate a lie.

  11. avatar
    Lupin April 29, 2010 at 11:28 am #

    This is so riddled with teh stupid I don’t even know where to begin.

    If you’re born on US soil, and for that matter on a ship or a plane flying the US flag, you’re an American citizen period.

    And, as I mentioned in the other thread, where would they be deporting American citizens to? Most babies in that situation would end up stateless.

    It is an utterly ridiculous, asinine and impractical concept.

  12. avatar
    Lupin April 29, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    Is that a lie to?

    Just asking.

  13. avatar
    richCares April 29, 2010 at 11:39 am #

    A common right wing and wing nut characteristic is to invent stories or proof or titles (phony PHD’s) that supports their position. Though dishonest, they don’t consider it lying (i.e. lies for Jesus). This is known as “Appeal from authority” (Argument from authority) and has been extensively used by “scott brown” who is not Scott Brown. This technique only works with people as dumb as they are. You can safely gloss over any of her comments, consider it a waste of time.

  14. avatar
    BatGuano April 29, 2010 at 11:42 am #

    I used to live on a border town in Arizona and 100% ID check by border patrol every time you left town was standard.

    which town was this ?

    i’ve been thru the border checkpoint at san onofre CA countless times and have never had to show my ID.

  15. avatar
    BatGuano April 29, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    the Texas COLB is sufficient for Passport application, just a comment on the liar now hypocrite!

    i couldn’t find texas to have a COLB but a “birth certificate” . so if scott was from texas there is no way she could have had a ” COLB that looked exactly like obama’s”.

  16. avatar
    BatGuano April 29, 2010 at 12:00 pm #

    oof. this is from my neck of the woods ( bilbray is my rep ). unfortunetely this is nothing new. this exact sentiment has been expressed for as long as i can remember. the people doing the ranting are usually the first to pick up day-laborers to do yard or other physical work on the cheap.

  17. avatar
    richCares April 29, 2010 at 12:11 pm #

    “the Texas COLB is sufficient for Passport application, just a comment”
    you are correct, I meant Birth Certificate not COLB, Thanks.

  18. avatar
    JoZeppy April 29, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    Has anyone told this rocket scientist that it is impossible to deport an American Citizen? How do you “deport” someone who is in the United States by right? You can deport an alien, legal, permanent resident, or illegal, because they are here by the consent (or lack of consent in the case of illegal) of the US, which can in turn withdraw that consent. But citizens (natural born or naturalized) are here by right. A right that the government cannot arbitarily withdraw. While it is possible to deport the illegal parents, if the parents choose to leave their child with relatives who are legally in the US, there is nothing the government can do about it (nor can they stop the child from returning to the US when he gets older).

  19. avatar
    Lupin April 29, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

    Also the other country (presumably the parents’?) is not obligated to take then, so they’d end up remaining in the US as stateless persons.

    Imagine if Mexico passed a law that said babies born in Mexico with red hair are not Mexicans, but Americans, and shipped us a few hundred babies every month. Would we have to take them? Of course not.

    As I said this beyond the obvious Constitutional issues, this is asinine and impractical.

    (One of the most astound lies I keep reading is that the US is the “ONLY” country to have jus soli; of course not — well over 50 countries in the world including France make you a citizen if you’re born here, independently of your parents’ nationalities or status.)

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2010 at 12:46 pm #

    Maybe Scott Brown has one of those REALLY SHORT FORMS that doesn’t say what state she was born in, and she doesn’t know.

  21. avatar
    BatGuano April 29, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    Also the other country (presumably the parents’?) is not obligated to take then, so they’d end up remaining in the US as stateless persons.

    been wondering about this myself. both my parents were resident aliens ( this is the term they always used ). both had eventually planned on moving back. as fate would have it they both died before that could happen.

    is “resident alien” the same as ” permenent resident ” ?
    am i in citizenship limbo ?
    do i still have a soul ?

    ( for the record both my parents became dual-citizens just before their death for inheritance tax reasons. so the question in my case is moot, hopefully, but i don’t think it’s an uncommon scenario ).

  22. avatar
    milspec April 29, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    Last time I crossed the US/Mexico border the US officer looked at my passport and me for about 15 seconds. A LONG 15 seconds.

  23. avatar
    JoZeppy April 29, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

    Both of my parents were also permanent residents when I was born (they also eventually became dual citizens, as am I, and even my daughter (we were both born in the US), as the country of my parents’ origin is a jus sanguinis nation).

    And actually, there is a difference between a resident alien and a permanent resident (in the same sense as there is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen). All permanent residents are resident aliens but the converse is not true. Resident alien merely means you have established a presense in the US. This could be through a work visa, or even being here illegally. It merely means you in the US for over 31 days. A permanent resident is a green card holder, who has been granted permission to stay in the US permanently.

    And for the other questions….I’m sure the birthers believe that both you and I are in some sort of a citizenship limbo, and as we believe Obama is a NBC, we obviously have no soul.

    The question is what about my daughter? She is a second generation American on my side, and fourth generation American on her mother’s side. Under Polish law, citizenship is conferred on everyone born to at least one citizen parent, unless the non-citizen parent confers citizenship, and the parents file notice with the embassay of Poland of intent of non-citizenship of the child in the first six months after the child’s birth (which can be reversed once the child reaches 18). Additionally, citizenship can only be revoked by filing a request with the President of Poland. His decisions are non-appealable, and revokation is rarely granted. As we took no action, my child, who never set foot in Poland is a citizen of Poland. She was born to two parents that are American citizens. So is she a Natural Born Citizen according to birthers?

  24. avatar
    Black Lion April 29, 2010 at 2:08 pm #

    Good point…

  25. avatar
    Black Lion April 29, 2010 at 2:10 pm #

    Sven, are you sure you’re not “Scott Brown”? Because that story sounds a bit fishy…What border town are we talking about…When I was living in CA I cross over to Mexico via San Diego and never had an issue…

  26. avatar
    SvenMagnussen April 29, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    I used to live in Sierra Vista, AZ. 4 years ago.

    100% ID check by Border Patrol. Stop your vehicle, roll down your window, show ID, answer obscure, non-threatening question, i.e. “How ya’ doin’, today?,” and your off.

    Unless, of course, a dog smelled contraband and then you got to pull over.

  27. avatar
    Arthur April 29, 2010 at 2:57 pm #

    SvenMagnussen,

    Although birthers have a reputation for saying some outlandish things, I can’t believe you actually intended to write,

    I used to live on a border town in
    Arizona and 100% ID check by border
    patrol every time you left town was
    standard.

    I sure that what you MEANT to say was,

    I lived for time in Breceni, charming border town of lovely state Moldova; before we leave town to make laugh at Jew, all show papers to Secret Police–no one complain, all happy, all appreciate good safety provided by state security. I think U.S. America should try it in famous tea growing region called Arizona. Who need Mexican to pick Arizona tea leaves when U.S. have Jew and black to pick, yes?

  28. avatar
    Dave April 29, 2010 at 3:04 pm #

    You mention his support of the AZ anti-immigrant law, so I hope it would be too OT to raise a comment about that law.
    It’s been widely reported that the AZ law enables anyone to sue any county or local govt that they feel is failing to sufficiently harass immigrants. But I believe the text of the law says that anyone can sue if said govt has a policy that impedes enforcement, and further bases the penalty on the number of days that said policy is in effect from the date of filing the lawsuit.
    I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that this provision will make it very difficult to get anywhere with such a lawsuit. Suppose a city simply makes no policy — how can they then be sued? Or in any case, as long as the policy basically says they will comply with this law, how can they be sued? It seems this license to sue is limited to what a govt says it will do, and doesn’t include what it’s actually doing (or not doing).

  29. avatar
    SFJeff April 29, 2010 at 3:17 pm #

    Could be true- The big difference between the Arizona bill and Sven’s situation is that checking on legal status is the Border Patrol’s job, not the job of local police.

  30. avatar
    richCares April 29, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    just a side note, I attended University of Hawaii 1961 to 1964. I believe I knew all the African exchange students (there weren’t many). That means I probably knew Obama Sr. I just don’t remember for sure. there was one black girl married to a white man, and one black man married to a white girl (that was probably Obama Sr.)

    just another side note! my daughter was born in 1965 and I left Hawaii in 1969. She visits her cousins often and speaks fluent pidgin and they laugh at the birthers (amazing for an Architect).

  31. avatar
    SvenMagnussen April 29, 2010 at 4:08 pm #

    I was listening to Laura Inghram last night. She wants to travel to Arizona to show her support for Immigration Reform.

    Anyway, the guy that plays Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral in Tombstone, AZ invited her to visit over the Memorial Day Weekend.

    If it happens, you don’t want to miss it. They put on a pretty good show.

  32. avatar
    Randy April 29, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    I live in Texas and the last thing I want to do is “show my papers”. Our legislators are morons for the most part. It has been said that we would be better served if they met for 2 days every 180 years instead of the other way around.

    Just because AZ passed an assinine law does not mean we have to.

    “Born in the U.S.A.”
    B. Springstein

  33. avatar
    Black Lion April 29, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

    See the difference between Rich and the birthers…He admits he was not sure. If this was a birther, like the so called military guy that claimed to have met Obama and he told him that he was born in Kenya, the story would have gone that he remembered that there was an exchange student that took his white girlfriend back to Africa to meet his parents while she was pregnant….And then all of the birthers would have crossposted the story and the freepers would have been throwing poo in their cages….However thankfully Rich is a stand up guy….

  34. avatar
    Ima Foreigner April 29, 2010 at 4:58 pm #

    Observation #1 – One of Orly’s old nemesis/web-wrangler is a big supporter of Mr Hunter on FR. Which leads me to wonder just how many degrees of separation there are between Orly and Kevin Bacon.

    Observation #2 – I am sure that Mr Hunter and many of his like-minded supporters are fine, upstanding Christians. I am doubly sure that they will see no irony whatsoever in deporting a US citizen whose name was spelled J E S U S.

    Which leads me to wonder – Who Would Jesus Deport?

  35. avatar
    G April 29, 2010 at 5:24 pm #

    LMAO! That was hilarious, thanks for posting! 🙂

  36. avatar
    G April 29, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    “Scott Brown”

    -Well, at least you’ve told us that you live in Texas? Can you please answer whether you were also born there too?

    If you can just answer a simple honest and direct question, then I can have a respectful conversation with you on these matters.

    Look, I was born in OH and have lived here my whole life. See how easy that was? Your turn now.

    In answer to your question, US Citizenship law follows BOTH “born of the soil” as well as heritage via parentage.

    So yes, you can derive your citizenship from parents as well. I’m not sure why you are using the term “soul” in these regards, as that is not a tangible or even legally recognized concept. You were a bit closer on a previous post when you mentioned “by blood”, in the sense that genetically you are related and a product of your parentage.

    Even in philosophical terms, I’ve never heard it phrased that one’s soul was “inherited”…so it is just such an odd usage of how you phrased things that I needed to point it out as it makes it difficult in understanding what you are actually saying.

    Finally, in terms of the issues of showing ID:

    Yes, that completely makes sense to always show legitimate ID when coming across the border from another country. Just as it makes sense to show ID when purchasing certain items or when getting a job. It also makes sense to show ID on a regular basis for activities such as air travel and when working at certain locations (valid ID badges often must be worn at all times – for both employees, vendors & visitors). When accused of a legitimate crime, this is also a valid time to require ID.

    HOWEVER, that being said, you do not have to (nor do I think you should) have to provide ID for simple activities such as walking down the street or “window shopping” at a store or simply driving in your own car on the road. Nor should you have to provide ID to go from one town to another or one state to another within our nation’s borders.

    One of the main problems with how the AZ law is written is that it uses a murky term such as “suspicion” to try to determine when to question someone and require them to show identification. This goes well beyond simply checking & verifying ID under legitimate situations as described above.

    The danger is this new law really opens the door to abuse based personal prejudices, “settling scores” and racial profiling which will likely lead to harassment and violation of the rights of individuals who are here LEGALLY – whether legal visitors, immigrants, or even more worrisome, citizens of this country.

    If you live in TX, I’m sure you are aware that there are many folks of Mexican descent that still might choose to speak Spanish within their community that have been here for generations upon generations. All of them might “look”, dress or sound no different than folks who are from Mexico, so how do you distinguish and not harass these US citizens who were born and living here from the rest?

  37. avatar
    Mary Brown April 29, 2010 at 6:07 pm #

    You remind me of the people who thought my immigrant Slovak grandmother was not American and that her children including my dad were not American enough. He often spoke to us of that attitude. This is just another chapter in this sad tale. It is in her name and my dad’s that I speak. People are citizens because they were born here. They don’t have to pass some litmus test about what constitutes being American enough. You know Scott or Scotta, I wouldn’t pass your test either. And I was born here to mother who was 11th generation-from early Dutch settlers.

  38. avatar
    sarina April 29, 2010 at 6:29 pm #

    Scott

    I live in Florida. I’ve seen the laborers working the strawberry fields,(this was a while back) I talked to the owner of the fields because one of my husband’s friend had a fish farm close to this strawberry farm. He told me 85% of the workers were undocumented Mexican immigrants and the rest were from South and Central America. He told me they were good workers and he had no complains about them. I’m not saying that this is correct but they are here working.

  39. avatar
    G April 29, 2010 at 7:15 pm #

    It is these business owners that need to start following the law and are the true source of the problem. Fix the law so that these field workers are coming here on legitimate temporary work visas and entitled to proper pay and rights.

    Also, as with any work visas granted, these are only supposed to be granted when the work can’t be filled by those already living here. These owners always like to claim that Americans won’t do the work, but that is not really the case. The truth is, they intentionally don’t advertise most of these positions and they don’t want to pay a fair work wage for them. If they played by the rules, I’m sure a number of American folks looking for work would do these jobs and they can use legal work visa workers to fill the rest.

    The argument that this would raise the price of our produce too high is also BS. If you do the math properly and pay both fair wages & taxes, the additional costs to do things the right way divided over the volume of product picked and generated would only amount to an increase in pennies per item at the grocery store.

    The real reason is that these greedy owners want to rake in excessive profit margins, that they people doing the actual labor don’t receive their fair share for and they are just as willing to excessively try to threaten or gouge the consumer beyond a reasonable amount too.

    These owners are one of the key sources of the immigration problem. This issue needs to be properly and fairly addressed and fixed.

  40. avatar
    Mary Brown April 29, 2010 at 7:37 pm #

    Dumb, dumber,dumbest. This is variation of former idiocy. At one point quotas were established that favored Western European immigrants. The anglo saxons did not want many more Yuris or Florians in the country. Now they want to get rid of Miguels. And this goes a lot futher. Now these idiots want to deport citizens.

  41. avatar
    Mary Brown April 29, 2010 at 7:39 pm #

    You ammend the 14th ammendment.

  42. avatar
    milspec April 29, 2010 at 8:17 pm #

    I should mention that the border crossing took place on the first anniversary of 911

  43. avatar
    thisoldhippie April 29, 2010 at 8:54 pm #

    My daughter is of Irish and Scots/Irish descent, but she is dark complected – except for the blue eyes. While working at a retail clothing store she was approached by an older woman who began speaking Spanish to her. When my daughter explained that she didn’t speak fluent Spanish the woman then began to berate her for not knowing her “native language.” Under the Arizona law my daughter could easily be stopped and asked for her “papers” if she looked suspicious, i.e. too brown.

  44. avatar
    Kathryn N April 29, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

    If she’s white, they’ll probably let her slide.

  45. avatar
    Arizona Laws April 29, 2010 at 11:59 pm #

    Personally I think Arizona’s new law is a great law. We all recognize that we need to allow a better path to citizenship, but since the state can’t grant the citizenship the only way we can protect ourselves is to enforce harsher penalties against all illegal immigrants. We can’t sort the good and the bad until the Federal government acts. Instead of protesting our actions people should be petitioning their congressmen to reform immigration laws. We just want to keep the criminals and drug dealers out of our state.

  46. avatar
    Hawaiiborn April 30, 2010 at 12:20 am #

    She visits her cousins often and speaks fluent pidgin and they laugh at the birthers (amazing for an Architect).

    eh, da birfers, dey dem stupid nutz who like…like say dat da prez is not one you-ess citizen right? How come dey no like talk to one Hawaii resident to make sure dey like, sayin da right stuff ? Dey lo-lo!!! What dey get? No stay akamai! Ai-sos! Nevah heard such stupid stuff in like foevahs…

    den get dis stupid rep from da mainland…who like claim dat he like deport babies now? what kine dat? try deport my family, da babooze. See what kine babumcha trouble he goin to be in!

    — haha.. Pidgin English….

  47. avatar
    Hawaiiborn April 30, 2010 at 12:25 am #

    Everytime I go back to Hawaii, I slip into my “local” Pidgin speech. It’s funny, because I only hear it when I’m in Hawaii, but being back in California, I don’t “hear” myself slipping into the “accent” (yes there is an accent), but my friends all say that I do have one.

    My “gift” is that I can take a passage and re-write it into Pidgin English pretty easily. The best though is Lisa Matsumoto’s Once Upon One Time Trilogy.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 12:25 am #

    The preceding is probably spam, but I deleted the hyperlink and left the content intact for what it’s worth.

  49. avatar
    Lupin April 30, 2010 at 1:49 am #

    What you’re describing is an entry check at the border, quite normal, not “every time you left town”.

    I find nothing wrong with border patrol checking the ids of people coming into the country at the border.

    But that is NOT what you were describing earlier.

  50. avatar
    Lupin April 30, 2010 at 1:53 am #

    Hear! Hear!

    The BBC had a documentary recently (like 60 MINUTES-type) in which they ran an experiment, with several small business, from restaurants to crop picker to builders, trying to replace Polish workers (or in the case of the restaurant, Indians) with British ones on the dole.

    It was a disaster. The Poles did the work well; the Brits were late, sloppy, unreliable and had a bad attitude. Only one case (at the builders) led to a joiner being hired permanently.

    The business owners admitted they’d go bankrupt if it weren’t for the polish workers.

  51. avatar
    Mike April 30, 2010 at 2:52 am #

    She wants to travel to Arizona to show her support for Immigration Reform.

    With any luck, she’ll be deported.

  52. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 30, 2010 at 5:20 am #

    “the last thing I want to do is “show my papers”

    The funny thing now is when I read the comments by supporters of this bill on Arizonan newspaper websites is that the birthers (and yes, 99% of them are birthers) are perfectly comfortable with the need to show identification all the time outside their home, even when walking to the bakery a hundred yards away.

    And of course, they all claim that when travelling through Western Europe you have to show your identity card to a police officer officer about every five moments. I haven’t been asked to show my ID for the last five years and that while visiting France, Holland, Germany and Spain. The only ones interested in my ID are the Polish officials at the Polish-Ukrainian border, and they want my Schengen passport, not my ID. So what are these American tourists doing in Western Europe so that they get to show their ID so often? Refusing to pay the bill “In Bruges” (and I agree those restaurants overcharge)? Kissing the Mona Lisa picture in Paris? Getting on the tram line 4 to Moscow in Ghent without a ticket and petend they dio not need one because they alreday paid for a visa to Russia? Cutting a piece of concrete from the remnants of the Wall still standing? Singing the German national anthem at a Jewish cemetary in Amsterdam?

    No, of course not. These people simply do not know because they have never been abroad. Which explains why they think only a birth certificate with a baby foortprint will get you a US passport.

  53. avatar
    Lupin April 30, 2010 at 6:03 am #

    One of the overwhelming things that becomes immediately obvious when you read the birthers screeds is that they have no international experience whatsoever.

    I think they get their ideas about “Furrinistania” from watching the stock shots of ALIAS or 24.

  54. avatar
    Scientist April 30, 2010 at 8:06 am #

    It is true that most West European countries issue national ID cards. While, technically, you can be asked to show it while walking down the street, you are correct that in practice that doesn’t happen. The irony of course is that the Right in the US is supposed to be dead-set against intrusive government (national health care, regulations, taxes) yet they are willing to adopt extremely intrusive laws like Arizona’s.

    This law actually makes it a crime for a US citizen to leave home without ID. Never before has this been the case as a general rule, with the exception of driving a motor vehicle. You could be arrested for walking down the street if you forget to bring an ID. Think that won’t happen to you? The cops in Arizona will be very sensitive to the issue of racial profiling. The surest way to avoid the perception of that is (along with plenty of brown-skinned Hispanics) to bust a few native-born Anglos doing such grave acts as jogging or walking their dogs without proof of their citizenship in their pockets. After all, it’s hard to distinguish folks from the upper Midwest and Northwest from illegal Canadian interlopers. Sarah Palin better watch out the next time she goes to Arizona. After all, we all know she was born in Canada and smuggled into the US as an infant.

  55. avatar
    Arthur April 30, 2010 at 9:18 am #

    SwenMagnusen:

    A few years ago I had the misfortune of meeting Laura Inghram when she came to my community to deliver a speech. She proved to be the most repellent person I’ve ever encountered, and her speech was so hate-filled that even the the many conservatives in the audience were offended. In fact, she generated so much ill-will that the local talk-radio station pulled her program (unfortunately, they replaced her with Dennis Miller).

    If Inghram does go to Arizona, her presence may convince the state to repeal their recent immigration bill just to get rid of her.

  56. avatar
    milspec April 30, 2010 at 10:17 am #

    The ever classie Laura http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3lCfHtaR30

  57. avatar
    MuhommandMcLovin April 30, 2010 at 10:50 am #

    Obviously, you and Arthur have some mommy issues.

    Laura isn’t the problem. Her crew is incompetent.

  58. avatar
    Arthur April 30, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    MuhommandMcLovin:

    You big meany! Oooo, you just make me boil! After reading my comments critical of Laura Inghram, you responded by saying I must have “some mommy issues.”

    Have you been speaking to my therapist?! Answer me, have you?!

    No, really, have you? Because I’d love to know what she thinks of me. I tell you what, that woman has a MSW in hawtness! What I’d give to see her Freudian slip!

  59. avatar
    Black Lion April 30, 2010 at 11:20 am #

    The birthers are really getting desperate….Over on the racist seditious site Rebubx, they seem to have some new theories on the President’s family….

    http://69.84.25.250/blogger/post/New-discovery-links-Dunham-aliases-to-Dunham-front-companies-and-real-estate-transactions.aspx

    “Ann Dunham was possibly not an America citizen – and went to school in Beirut, Lebanon. Possibly, the family was smuggled into the US as spies. No wonder Obama refuses to show his BC.”

    “The real reason is that Madelyn’s Dad worked for Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company. In 1973 David Rockefeller founded the Trilateral Commission (TC) with the Marxist-praising Zbigniew Brzezinski as its director. Zbigniew Brzezinski is a foreign policy advisor to Obama. What these Trilateralists truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. The place to start is with the banks and developement of “predatory lending” schemes that would eventually collapse Capitalism and pave the way for Socialism. It should also be noted that Stanley Dunham (Obama’s grandfather) started an Oil company for Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia called Mobil Oil.. so that Standard Oil could make transfers to Indonesia using Lolo’s Oil front. Tweny-percent of the Standard Oil company’s Oil went to powering German Submarines during WWII using a different Oil front in Indonesia prior to Lolos.”

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 1:06 pm #

    Recycled old stuff.

  61. avatar
    Mary May 13, 2010 at 11:00 am #

    I am alarmed by La Raza and MEChA and their objectives. I have seen pictures of students in California flying the American flag upside down and beneath the American flag. If they are true Americans they would never do this. Their loyalty is not with the United States, but with Atzlan. They do not want the immigration law to pass because it gives them less chance to have the mass populace to vote/take over the U. S. The “anchor” babies are due to a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. I support their exportation, which has happened in our past history and have no sympathy for “torn apart” families because of illegal acts against the U. S. Go back to Mexico if you love it so much!

  62. avatar
    Mary May 13, 2010 at 11:42 am #

    Mary: I am alarmed by La Raza and MEChA and their objectives. I have seen pictures of students in California flying the American flag upside down and beneath the American flag. If they are true Americans they would never do this. Their loyalty is not with the United States, but with Atzlan. The “anchor” babies are due to a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. Deportation HAS happened in our history, so there is a precedent for it. Read the statistics on how much tax money it takes to give service to illegals. Drastic times call for drastic measures. It seems that if you don’t want to be suspect to citizenship, demand that your relatives/friends NOT to come into this country illegally and to work toward fixing their own country’s problems, not work to destroy ours.

  63. avatar
    Ray P. June 5, 2010 at 7:28 pm #

    I have a question for you’all. If my dad was born in Cheyenne, WY, and his mother, grandparents, great-grandparents (etc.) were born in New Mexico (when it was a Territory), was he an anchor baby?

  64. avatar
    Sef June 5, 2010 at 8:00 pm #

    Arthur: MuhommandMcLovin:
    You big meany! Oooo, you just make me boil! After reading my comments critical of Laura Inghram, you responded by saying I must have “some mommy issues.”
    Have you been speaking to my therapist?! Answer me, have you?!No, really, have you? Because I’d love to know what she thinks of me. I tell you what, that woman has a MSW in hawtness! What I’d give to see her Freudian slip!

    Comments like this is why brain bleach was invented. However, the assembly line is going too slowly.

  65. avatar
    Dave June 5, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    Ray P.: I have a question for you’all. If my dad was born in Cheyenne, WY, and his mother, grandparents, great-grandparents (etc.) were born in New Mexico (when it was a Territory), was he an anchor baby?

    I believe the way this works is, when the US acquires a territory, all the residents automatically become US citizens. And everyone born in a territory is also a US citizen. So your father was not an “anchor baby”, because your grandparents, having been born in a US territory, were already US citizens.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 5, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

    Rap P.: I have a question for you’all. If my dad was born in Cheyenne, WY, and his mother, grandparents, great-grandparents (etc.) were born in New Mexico (when it was a Territory), was he an anchor baby?

    No.

  67. avatar
    Arthur June 6, 2010 at 1:45 am #

    Sef:
    Comments like this is why brain bleach was invented.However, the assembly line is going too slowly.

    Sef:

    “Brain bleach” . . . that’s a bad thing, right? Because I was aiming for a kind of goofy, self-deprecating funny. People are always misinterpreting me. Why didn’t I study more in that night class on how to choose and use emoticons!? What’s the one for irony?? Is it winking smiley-face guy ;- ), or unibrow open-mouth dude with a goatee [:-o> ? Guess it’s back to the Learning Annex for me!

  68. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 6, 2010 at 2:10 am #

    Dave:
    I believe the way this works is, when the US acquires a territory, all the residents automatically become US citizens. And everyone born in a territory is also a US citizen. So your father was not an “anchor baby”, because your grandparents, having been born in a US territory, were already US citizens.

    I believe that it not how it works. Congress must pass a law for all residents to get citizenship, and for all people born there to get citizenship.

    For instance, take a look at 8 USC 1402 for the law regarding Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico was succeeded by Spain to the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War (December 10, 1898). It wasn’t until 1917 that Puerto Rican citizens were given U.S. Citizenship. Furthermore, it isn’t until 1952 that citizenship is granted permentantly for Puerto Ricans (retroactive to 1941).

    Only people who are currently born in the United States, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam are Citizens at birth by virtue of the place that they were born. If you’re born in American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands, you are not a citizen of the United States, despite them being incorporated territories. Those do make you “Nationals” of the United States, though.

  69. avatar
    Sef June 6, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    Arthur:
    Sef:“Brain bleach” . . . that’s a bad thing, right? Because I was aiming for a kind of goofy, self-deprecating funny. People are always misinterpreting me. Why didn’t I study more in that night class on how to choose and use emoticons!? What’s the one for irony?? Is itwinking smiley-face guy;- ), orunibrow open-mouth dude with a goatee [:-o> ? Guess it’s back to the Learning Annex for me!

    I was referring to your last sentence.

  70. avatar
    RBBrittain June 6, 2010 at 2:14 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Only people who are currently born in the United States, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam are Citizens at birth by virtue of the place that they were born. If you’re born in American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands, you are not a citizen of the United States, despite them being incorporated territories. Those do make you “Nationals” of the United States, though.

    Persons born in the Northern Mariana Islands are citizens by birth. “Nationals” applies only to American Samoa and a few other minor islands (i.e., Swains Island).

    Also, neither American Samoa nor the CNMI is an “incorporated territory” of the U.S. The only such territory today is Palmyra Atoll, which was part of the Hawaiian republic (and kingdom before it) when the U.S. annexed it in 1898, and later when it became an incorporated territory; but it was detached from Hawaii prior to statehood.

  71. avatar
    RBBrittain June 6, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    dunstvangeet: I believe that it not how it works. Congress must pass a law for all residents to get citizenship, and for all people born there to get citizenship.

    That is true for unincorporated territories (i.e., all present territories except Palmyra Atoll), but NOT for incorporated territories–including New Mexico & Wyoming, which the previous poster referred to.
    Also, the Supreme Court’s 1892 ruling in Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer ( http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html ) suggests anyone residing in a territory when it becomes a state is not only a citizen, but ALSO is eligible to run for President (even if foreign-born), due to the alternate qualifications for President (i.e., a citizen when the Constitution was adopted) and the constitutional requirement that new states be admitted “on an equal footing with the original states”. That doesn’t apply to Obama, but it certainly would apply to Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona Territory and lived there when it became a state.

  72. avatar
    RBBrittain June 6, 2010 at 2:57 pm #

    I might add that Obama is a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment itself (without an act of Congress), since he was born in “the United States” as used therein (i.e., the 50 states and D.C.) and subject to its jurisdiction. Per the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ( http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html ), the only persons NOT under U.S. “jurisdiction” (as used in the 14th Amendment) when born here are (a) children of foreign diplomats, (b) children of occupying forces, and (c) “Indians not taxed” (repealed in 1924 by the Indian Citizenship Act). Thus, being born in Hawaii and not in any of the excluded categories, Obama is a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

    Though the Supreme Court has never explicitly tied the two together, its decision in Wong was based on a reference to “natural-born subjects” in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, which is almost certainly the source for “natural-born citizen” in the qualifications for President. Thus, “natural-born citizen” is almost certainly the same as 14th Amendment citizenship by birth.

    Of course, neither Duncan Hunter nor many of the “birthers” are willing to acknowledge Wong, which makes the basic rule of U.S. birthright citizenship almost purely “jus soli”. Neither of Wong’s parents were U.S. citizens; but since Wong was born in San Francisco and was not in any of the constitutionally-excluded categories, he was a U.S. citizen.

  73. avatar
    Dave June 6, 2010 at 3:11 pm #

    dunstvangeet:
    I believe that it not how it works.

    OK, I got it wrong the first time, so I did more research, and by “research” I mean “read wikipedia”. Part of what is now New Mexico came to the US as part of the treaty after the Mexican-American war, and that treaty required the US to grant citizenship to any Mexican citizens residing there. Most of what is now New Mexico was busted off of Texas, so the residents there were presumably already US citizens. The small remaining piece was part of the Gadsden Purchase, and I can’t find any info on what citizenship finagling accompanied that. Anyhow, it seems likely that Ray P.’s ancestors were citizens long before his father was born.

    I also found a page at the Dept. of State that says (as RBBritian says above) that the only territories that do not get citizenship are American Samoa and Swains Island. It also said that resident of the Marianas can opt to be US nationals instead of citizens if they prefer.

    Cue the birthers claiming that Obama was born in Samoa.

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

    RBBrittain: Also, the Supreme Court’s 1892 ruling in Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer ( http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html ) suggests anyone residing in a territory when it becomes a state is not only a citizen, but ALSO is eligible to run for President (even if foreign-born), due to the alternate qualifications for President (i.e., a citizen when the Constitution was adopted) and the constitutional requirement that new states be admitted “on an equal footing with the original states”.

    Thanks for visiting with us and contributing. I would add to this that Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the Territory of Kansas.

  75. avatar
    Sef June 6, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Thanks for visiting with us and contributing. I would add to this that Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the Territory of Kansas.

    Since there has been a recent question as to when Ohio was legally admitted to the Union maybe Grant should be added to the list.

  76. avatar
    Mike June 6, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    Sef: Since there has been a recent question as to when Ohio was legally admitted to the Union maybe Grant should be added to the list.

    Eh, not so much.

  77. avatar
    Sef June 6, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    Mike:
    Eh, not so much.

    Thanks for the pointer. I had heard something (about the statehood problem) back during Ohio’s bicentennial, but had not delved into it.