What Kind of Person Steals from a Baby, Representative Lynn?

Today, I was standing around flirting with a wee baby when I heard about something so stupid and evil I thought “This must be a mistake. Surely, the man who is telling me about this has suffered a bump on the head right before I got here or is high on gasoline fumes from the auger he’s putting in the back of my car.”

But, no, I go to the Tennessee General Assembly home page, type in “citizenship” and it turns out it’s true.

Representative Lynn, who is “working hard for Sumner and Wilson Counties,” earlier introduced a resolution to try to force the U.S. Congress to clarify that children of illegal immigrants who are born here don’t qualify for U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

America, we have tried (and often succeeded) to deny citizenship to children born of non-citizens. You may remember the Dred Scott decision, which ruled that African Americans who were slaves or descendants of slaves were not and could never be U.S. citizens. The 14th Amendment was written in specific response to this. But other children born here–Native American and Asian being the two most obvious–have had problems establishing their right to citizenship because they, too, came from “undesirable” groups.

In other words, efforts to deny citizenship to children born here in the United States are always a part of a larger movement to hurt and punish the racial demographic to which they belong. (In fact, one might argue that, considering how much of the current hand-wringing is about “The Mexicans,” and considering where the traditional boundaries of the peoples living here before we got here, and the traditional boundaries of Mexico, we might read this whole thing as a continuation of our efforts to deny the people who were here before us rights that we have so that we can continue to move them up and out when we want their resources.)

But, I know, to a lot of you, that sounds like egg-headed mumbo-jumbo. So, let me bring up a few other points.

1. A lot of us have ancestors who fought and died to end slavery and to provide some basic legal recognitions of the humanity of African Americans, which would give them Constitutional protections. We tore this country apart and then bled it back together in order to ensure that people who were born here were “us.” Ending birthright citizenship is just about as fundimentally un-American as you can get and it is grossly disrespectful of the blood that was shed on this ground by our fathers and sons and brothers (and sneaky women-folk).

Why is Representative Lynn trying to encourage the passing of such legistation which is both anti-American and, by virtue of it negating the sacrifices of our soldiers, anti-troops?

2. Many of you are clinging desperately to the notion that the 2nd Amendment means what it says. Well, if Representative Lynn and her colleagues succeed in making the 14th Amendment mean something other than what it clearly says–“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.”–what kind of precident do you think that sets for the next time one of us Lefty crackpots tries to argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says?

What kind of precident is Lynn trying to set? And are you prepared to say that rights enumerated in the Constitution don’t apply should some Legislator gets a bug up her butt to undermine them?

3. Representative Lynn is a hypocrite. We are all hypocrites, of course, so this isn’t an world-ending charge. But here’s a person who is trying to get excused absenses for kids whose parents are in the military, whose trying to track and monitor people who prey on children sexually, who wants background checks on everyone who comes in contact with children, and so on and so on. But when it comes to providing children citizenship, which would safeguard them in important ways for their whole lives, Lynn wants to pick and choose which children to protect.

4. So, how would this work, exactly? Would Nashville’s local police work with ICE to infiltrate daycares looking for criminal babies? Will we see immigration raids on local schools? Does Representative Lynn have stock in a company that makes little handcuffs? And when these dangerous babies and small children are captured and arrested, where, exactly, will they be held? Can you stick a three year old in a juvenile detention center? Should you? What if you never locate the baby’s parents? Will we ship toddlers to Mexico and then… what… leave them at the airport unattended to die? I hope Representative Lynn isn’t claiming to be pro-life in that case.

5. Regardless of what Lynn claims, U.S. citizenship is the right of every baby born in the United States, regardless of who his parents are. That’s been established repeatedly in court. So, Representative Lynn is attempting to steal from babies.

That’s how classy she is. She’s trying to steal from babies and strip babies of their Constitutional rights.

Babies.

Folks, seriously.

SHE’S STEALING FROM BABIES.

It would almost be a joke if she wasn’t dead serious about it.

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “What Kind of Person Steals from a Baby, Representative Lynn?

  1. You really need to get a grip comparing Dred Scott to the current Anchor Baby scam going on now. I’m sorry you feel guilty for being white. Your guilt doesn’t change facts. Go ahead a throw the argument “We are all illegal.” Reading your rant makes me glad I’m leaving the North American Union.

  2. Pingback: Green Tee Readings » links for 2008-04-28

  3. Great idea. Let’s make it retroactive, shall we? Maybe go back 100 years. Don’t know when Rep. Lynn’s “people” came over but it’s only fair that we go back far enough to include them.

  4. wanting to change citizenship requirements is one thing, but you can’t “clarify” your way to that destination. lex soli citizenship is fairly soundly based in the constitution; barring some very surprising supreme court overturn, you’d need an honest-to-ghu constitutional amendment to do away with it.

    odd how, ever since the ERA died, nobody seems to think any new amendments can pass any more. it’s apparently even infected the same cretins who killed the ERA, now. wonder if they’ll ever get to regret that?

  5. Oh my god! This is supposed to be some indication of my white pride, if I’ll throw myself behind this crap?

    I can just imagine sitting around in the afterlife talking about the accomplishments of white people:

    “We built Stonehenge.”

    “We sailed to America in tiny boats.”

    “I brought you the sonnet, Hamlet, and many new words.”

    “We went to the moon.”

    Jason: “I encouraged my government to deal harshly with babies.”

    “Babies? Human babies? The kind you can accidently shake too hard and kill?”

    “Yes, babies.”

    “Were they perhaps giant babies?”

    “No, regular size.”

    “Babies…”

    “Well, they were anchor babies.”

    “Oh, they were made out of anchors. I’m not sure how that’s menacing, but okay.”

    “No, no, they weren’t made out of anchors.”

    “Oh, so they could cause anchors to be manifest by sheer will, perhaps on the heads of regular people! That is quite a problem.”

    “No, no, they were just regular ordinary babies.”

    “With no special powers.”

    “Well, they were threatening to turn America brown.”

    “Um, hmm. Well, yes. Moving on. Let’s hear from the people responsible for the Chartes cathedral then, shall we?”

  6. What a stupid bill. If you want to change the constitution, then at least have the ovaries to submit a bill to change the constitution. But then, they’re a bit harder to get through than this dippy clarification back door.

  7. She’s got a BA in Econ from TSU. I’m guessing what she knows about the process of constitutional amendment, she learned from Schoolhouse Rock.

    What’s really sad is that she studied with a bunch of very talented Indian, African, and Bangladeshi professors, got her degree from a historically black college, made it into the Tennessee Legislature, and still can conclude (somehow) that the economic success of white people is under threat from too much inter-racial proximity. Really, Susan? Why in the hell did you go to TSU if you were skeered of teh brown peepuls?

  8. Pingback: Strict Constructionism On The 14th Amendment : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee

  9. The problem with this, is, despite those who currently like to look at everything through a class struggle prism anyway, this actually would create and perpetuate an American underclass.

    Illegal folks come over, have babies, and they die off but their children grow up as citizens and their children as citizens, etc.

    But change this, and then you have generations perpetually outside the bounds of citizenship, which is not good for society.

    I’m all for building a big ass wall and punishing employers who systematically break the law to hire illegals, but this drastic change would be horribly counterproductive.

  10. Holy shit! When even Lee and I are on the same side of an issue, you know there’s a problem with the issue. That’s all I’m saying.

  11. Lee, actually, probably, as part of the TSU/UT problems, would be my guess. For a long time there, TSU was doing everything it could to get white students, including scholarships and such. She probably did pick up a good education for very little, in part, because she’s white.

  12. uhh… uhh… feminsts suck. Deport all illegals! Afghans are highly overrated.

    There, I feel better. Can’t have us agreeing two posts in a row. I might lose some street cred.

  13. Unconstitutional. Unamerican. And the surest way I know not only to create a permanent underclass, as Lee points out, but a permanent class of those who have no stake, none at all, in this country, its gov’t, or its culture.

  14. Pingback: Hey, Representative Lynn! I Bet Some of These Kids Would Look Good Behind Bars « Tiny Cat Pants

  15. Pingback: Appalachian Scribe » Conservatives for a “Living Constitution”

  16. It was my understanding that a person born in this country wasn’t a US citizen, since some point during the clinton admin I think (at least I think it was on my “reasons to hate Clinton” list).

    If not, what am I thinking of? I’m pretty sure somebody revoked the whole “born here, citizen here” thing already though, I remember someone pointing it out as a reason why the anti-immie types are talking crap when they go on about mexican broodmares crossing the border just so they can do what Bruce Lee’s parents did en mass *dramatic organ music*.

    So this might just be a thing like a few years back, when texas banned Gay Marriage twice, because there was elections going on both times and no one checks for prior laws banning stuff.

    Also, wouldn’t “negative affirmative action” just be “negative action”, because a “negative affirmative” is just “a negative”? And as “action” can roughly be thought of as “force”, “negative action” over a distance (i.e. if you had to travel to college) would technically resolve as a form of negative energy if we were to describe you using a scalar, so possibly you are a tachyon, and that’s why you live in the 1950’s, and why you experience space-like time and vice versa.

  17. It was my understanding that a person born in this country wasn’t a US citizen

    Unless your parents are already US citizens or something. Basically rumors have it that the children of immigrants are not automatically citizens since hte 90’s, TRU FAX or don’t belive the hipe?

  18. False. If you are born here, you are a citizen, regardless of the status of your parents.

    I think what you’re talking about is the whole “anchor baby” thing. The anti-immigration folks seem to be under the impression that, if a baby is born here, that somehow gives the baby’s parents some kind of “get out of deportation free” card. So, then, the immigrants who got here illegally supposedly have this incentive to have babies once they’re here because, again, supposedly, they won’t be deported if they’re the parents of U.S. citizens.

    Maybe Mack or John Lamb can clarify, but I think what’s going on is that people on both sides are confusing changes to so-called “chain immigration” policies with policies towards illegal immigration.

    It used to be that U.S. citizens could only bring their spouses and minor children to the U.S., but now, U.S. citizens can bring those folks and their parents and their siblings. However, I believe that, starting under Clinton (and here’s where someone can correct me if I’m wrong), even though it was still technically possible, due to the imposition of huge long waits (20, 30 years in some cases), it became much more difficult.

    So, folks on the pro-immigration side see that it’s basically impossible for many U.S. citizens to bring their families here and that’s why they’re angry.

    Anti-immigration folks seem to think that a grown U.S. citizen’s ability to bring her parents here translates into a baby U.S. citizen’s ability to keep her parents here.

    That is untrue. If you are here illegally, you can be deported, even if you have U.S. citizen children. There are, in fact, U.S. citizens in Hutto, waiting with their parents, who are going to be deported. The children then, though U.S. citizens, will be “sent back to where they came from” even though they themselves came from here.

    And, it is also my understanding that, if you are a U.S. citizen, you cannot bring your parents here legally if they were ever caught in the country illegally, because, once you’re deported, I believe you’re not allowed back into the country.

    So, the choice we’re forcing on these parents is to either take their U.S. citizen kids with them (and I can only imagine how hard it’s going to be for those kids to prove that they were born in the U.S. when they’re caught up in these sweeps with their parents) or to be separated from them, probably forever.

    But anyway, the short answer is that the Constitution still says that a person born here is a citizen of here. Until they get that changed through another amendment, that’s the law of the land. (Well, there’s some folks that believe Congress has the right to change it without amending the Constitution, but those people are idiots.)

Comments are closed.