What George Will is interested in is eliminating birthright citizenship, so that Congress could have the power to say that no matter where they were born, Mexicans are Mexicans.  (I’m paraphrasing.)  This, Will says, serves to accomplish 3 goals: 1) bringing the interpretation of the 14th Amendment “into conformity with what the authors of its text intended”; 2) bringing that same interpretation in line with common sense; and 3) removing an incentive to illegal immigration.

Let’s start with that first goal, what the authors of the text intended.  The 14th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution following the Civil War.  That war was famously preceded by a Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sanford, which held that people of African descent were not citizens.  So the post-war amendments were enacted specifically to correct the wrong of saying that citizenship could be determined by ancestry or race rather than by birth.  And yet Will thinks the authors of that text intended, in fact, to say the opposite – because if citizenship were based on that of parents, the children of African slaves, born in the United States, would not be citizens.  I don’t think it’s going out on a limb to say that was NOT the intent of the 14th Amendment’s authors.

As for the issue of common sense, Will argues that interpreting the language of the 14th Amendment to require birthright citizenship strains reason.  The text 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.”  Seems pretty clear to me.  I don’t see a part that says “other than persons born of persons not of the United States.”  In order to make this simple, straightforward sentence confusing, Will gives a strained reading to the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language, following an argument that was first made in the 19th century to try to exclude native-born Americans of Chinese ancestry from citizenship.

Will’s argument is even less coherent than the racist anti-Chinese arguments, though – he says that because “in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants,” since immigration had not yet been restricted, the authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for “illegal immigrants.”  This, to me, is an amazing rationalization.  The argument is factually untrue, since many states regulated immigration both before and after the Civil War.  But it is also incredibly disingenuous, because it acts as though the invention of a phrase is the same thing as the start of a concept.  Does Will honestly think that because this country did not criminalize the act of living in the United States without federal authorization until after 1868 (aka “illegal immigration”) mean that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment – a mere 7 years before enacting a federal immigration statute, in fact – thought that everyone living in the U.S. had and always would have federal authorization to do so?  Again, not plausible.

Will’s final argument gets the most popular play – the idea that birthright citizenship creates a powerful incentive for pregnant women to come to the U.S. in order to access our most valuable asset: citizenship.  “On our dime,” the argument usually continues, implying further disgust at the hospital bills and other costs that then American taxpayers have to pay for this jet-setting mother.  Even though this is Will’s least legal argument, he puts it in the mouth of a law professor (does he realize its racist undertones, or is that assuming too much?):

A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, ‘can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state.’

Yes, right.  As though Americans on welfare are living lives of great advantageousness.  As though a woman suffering in abject poverty would choose to have a child in order to better her circumstances.  And as though poor pregnant women, in droves, are making the unfathomably dangerous and difficult decision to immigrate to the U.S. unlawfully, just to get their children rubber-stamped as citizens.  After all, having a citizen child does not protect a mother from deportation.  It does not protect her other children from deportation either.  It gives only the barest protections to the citizen child, who will still face racism, discrimination, and criminal suspicion.

Will ends by making the same argument that has been made elsewhere (by Peter Schuck, for example), that U.S. citizenship is a consensual relationship, requiring the consent of the nation.  Will might prefer that people (specifically, white people) get to decide who gets the citizenship title and who does not (and in this regard he shares much in common with the tea party types denying Obama’s citizenship).  Thankfully, since the 14th Amendment, citizenship has almost nothing to do with consent.  Whether Will likes it or not, the descendants of African slaves are citizens automatically, as are the descendants of Chinese immigrants in California, as are the “children born to Indian parents,” who Will wrongly suggests are not citizens.

It’s actually the one immigration rule that functions pretty equitably.  So it is no surprise that in spite of the fact that it has been clear, unquestioned, and fully established constitutional law for well over a hundred years, the calls to change the rule keep on coming.

-AS

First, a nice cross-section of the diverse crowd.  Young angry white people and old angry white people!

I’m not really sure what this guy was going for.  My guess is he just couldn’t quite take notes fast enough during one of Glenn Beck’s chalkboard sessions.

This struck as vaguely similar to another flag. . .

Less family friendly stuff after the jump.

I’m assuming these people came to protest the escalation in Afghanistan.

God, that’s terrifying.  But they’re probably unstoppable, if their supporters are passionate enough to hurriedly scrawl their names on the back of whatever sign they really wanted to bring.

This poor kid never had a chance.

One can dream, right?

-AR

Queen of the Crazies Michelle Bachmann, organizer of the rally, referred to the gathering as the “Super Bowl of Freedom.” This is another odd metaphor, since the Super Bowl implies the two worthiest competitors in a given field vying to see who is the best. It’s hard to imagine how Mao and Hitler made it through the quarterfinals and semi-finals of Freedom.

The Republican members of Congress who participated showed that they might not be Super Bowl caliber Freedomers themselves. Minority Leader John Boehner announced that he was going to read from the Constitution, and proceeded to read from the Declaration of Independence. Rep. Todd Akin led the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance in order to “drive the liberals crazy,” and then proceeded to screw up the words.

The Republican rally was full of war metaphors as well.  Capitol Hill became Lexington, Concord, Pork Chop Hill, and Hamburger Hill all rolled into one, not to be abandoned until the Democratic health care bill is “killed.” The Republicans and their teabagging followers referred to themselves as “freedom fighters.”

Curiously, despite all the war metaphors and the vitriolic rhetoric about government run health care being an evil worse than terrorism and equal to Nazism, no one in the crowd struck a literal blow against government run health care when given the opportunity. After a protester suffered a heart attack, he was attended to by medical personnel from the Capitol physician’s office. Health care employees employed by the United States government!!!!!! Rather than bludgeoning the paramedics, who are essentially SS officers in Glenn Beck Land, the protesters cleared a path so the person could be treated. Apparently, when faced with the suffering a real live human being, concern for human life takes precedence over ideological concerns about the proper role of government.

Just a couple days before this sorry spectacle on Capitol Hill, the Republicans released their alternative health care proposal (nothing like waiting till the last minute). Over the next 10 years, the Republican plan would lower the number of uninsured from 17% of the population to . . . 17% of the population. Compare this to the Democratic House bill, which lowers the percentage of uninsured Americans to 4% of the population.
Ah, but as the protesters made clear yesterday, the real evil we must be afraid of is not people lacking health insurance, but growth of  government. And the Republican plan is estimated to decrease the federal deficit by $68 billion. . . which is only $36 billion less than the Democratic plan trims from the deficit. So the Democratic plan both saves more and does more than the Republican plan. As Ezra Klein puts it:

It’s one thing to keep your cards close to your chest. Republicans are in the minority, after all, and their plan stands no chance of passage. It’s another to lay them out on the table and show everyone that you have no hand, and aren’t even totally sure how to play the game.

-AR

An Orange County lawmaker [Mike Duvall] who inadvertently broadcast explicit remarks about his sexual conquests over an open microphone during a lull in a Sacramento hearing abruptly resigned from office this afternoon.

The famously conservative Republican Assemblyman was just having a little pre-hearing banter about his sexual exploits with a couple of much-younger lobbyists , when unbeknownst to him the whole conversation was picked up by a nearby mike. Awkward!

Even more awkward is what it must have been like to be the conversational victim of such a gross overshare (courtesy of the OC Weekly):

“She wears little eye-patch underwear,” said Duvall, who is married with two children. “So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And
 so, we had made love Wednesday–a lot! And so she’ll, she’s all, ‘I am going 
up and down the stairs, and you’re dripping out of me!’ So messy!”

So many questions, so little time. First of all, what the hell is “eye-patch underwear”? How come the person Duvall is talking to doesn’t stop him at that point to figure that out? Oh right, because he’s THROWING UP IN HIS MOUTH.

You can check out some of the actual footage courtesy of the hilariously dopey KCAL news report that broke the story here.

-AS

There is an important lesson to be learned here, and I hope it doesn’t get by members of Congress. The reason for the difference in tone between Obama’s town hall and the rowdier town halls is that the people causing trouble at town halls, for all the noise they’ve made attention and attention they’ve received, represent a very small portion of the country. Because of the high demand to see the president, it is likely that the crowd at his event, randomly selected, represents fairly accurately the mood of the public. In contrast, at an event where interest in much lower, like an event held by a senator or congressmen, those who care most about the issue,(such as those who have been lied to and think that Barack Obama wants to kill their grandparents or move money directly from their paychecks to a big abortion fund) will be able to dominate the event.

-AR

This discussion demonstrates part of what makes Palin such a frustrating public figure. There are many fascinating questions about sexism and elitism surrounding the media’s coverage of and the country’s reaction to Sarah Palin, but she was so spectacularly and uniquely unqualified for the position to which she was nominated that these issues are almost impossible to analyze. There’s simply no basis for comparison: even Dan Quayle would have had more engagement with most issues of national importance in his first week in the Senate than Palin appears to have had in her entire life up to the time of her selection.

This reveals what a deeply cynical choice Palin’s nomination was in the first place. I suspect one reason the McCain campaign felt it could choose Palin without doing anything close to a proper vetting is because it thought it could answer any attacks on her, regardless of the merits, by charging sexism. This would have the added benefits of portraying liberals as hypocrites (since, you know, liberals are supposed to care about sexism) and maybe winning over some disaffected Hillary voters. Which just shows how poorly conservatives understand racism and sexism: only someone who sees all charges of sexism as equally meritless could fail to see a distinction between the treatment of a highly qualified and accomplished public servant like Clinton and an incompetent like Palin.

-AR

Listening to Sarah Palin now is kind of like remembering how we used to wear Hypercolor T-shirts. I guess that was the kind of thing that would only make sense as a pre-teen in the 80s. Once puberty hit, wearing a Hypercolor T-shirt just meant wearing a shirt with hypercolor pit stains. Also, as far as I remember, all the Hypercolorness wore out after about 10 washes. What a drag! Anyway, it’s nice we have enough distance from Palin now that it’s charming to look back and say to ourselves, wow, what was that all about?

There is already speculation about Palin’s real motives for resigning, so I want to get in while the gettin’s hot. Here are my top pics for the *real* reason Palin resigned by the banks of Lake Lucille today:

1. Trig actually Bristol’s first child. This news is about to be revealed by some creepy person who collected skin and hair samples from both and now has definitive proof.
2. Having illicit affair with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News.
3. Got carried away on vacation in Palm Springs; signed Alaska up for timeshare; Alaska now has to sit by pool in scorching heat and hope resale value of timeshare improves.
4. Just another victim of toxic mold syndrome.
5. Paid off by Mark Sanford who, after poisoning Michael Jackson, was at a loss how to keep the news cycle rolling elsewhere.

-AS

So count me surprised that something marginally interesting actually came of a political tweet, courtesy of Newt Gingrich’s May 27th “Latina woman racist should … withdraw” comment. It even inspired John Dickerson to write a defense of Republican tweeting in Salon yesterday.

I decided to check out Gingrich’s Twitter feed to see what I’ve been missing all these months by limiting my following to friends, cats, taco trucks, and funny people. But just as I expected, B-O-R-I-N-G. “I’m promoting my book, which is probably boring” “I’m going on Hannity to discuss something boring like taxes,” “I’m predictably and redundantly disagreeing with Obama,” blah, blah, blah.

That one set of tweets where Gingrich a) says Sotomayor is racist and b) equates her brand of racism with “old racism” (by which I think he means the sort of racism that has allowed the Supreme Court to be almost completely dominated by white men) is basically the only thing of interest there.

Except, perhaps, this:

“Auschwitz is a horrifying experience which reminded me of thee vil of kim jong I’ll and dangers of al qaeda hamas and hezbollah”

That tweet came right after the Sotomayor comments and was apparently related to Gingrich’s visit to Auschwitz. (Although it was initially unclear whether Gingrich sent his “racist” tweets from Auschwitz, he later clarified: “Tweeted on way warsaw.”)

Basically, unless you’re looking for boredom mixed with infrequent moments of offensiveness and frequent moments of Twittery confusion (what is a thee vil?), I’d stick to following Sockington.

-AS

After Coulter signed off, a caller asked Lars if he considered Coulter a “right-wing wacko.” Lars denied Coulter is a right-wing wacko, saying she’s just blunt and says the things that the rest of us think but don’t say. This may be true, but I don’t think that precludes her being a right-wing wacko. I’ll admit that occasionally I think the things that Ann Coulter says but don’t say them. Somewhere between thought and speech, some faculty intervenes and says “Don’t say that, it’s false/evil/ridiculous/racist/moronic.” I would contend that the lack of such a faculty is precisely what makes Ann Coulter a right-wing wacko.

The caller then challenged Lars to explain who is a right-wing wacko if Ann Coulter is not. Lars stuttered for a while, then named those who claimed Ramos and Compean, the border agents who gunned down a man at the border, should have their sentences commuted because the man they shot, unbeknownst to them, was a drug smuggler.. Personally, I reject any defintion of right-wing wacko that includes Dianne Feinstein but not George Bush. But even if you grant Lars’ standard, he may want to re-examine his opinion of Ann Coulter.

I then came upon Mark Levin. Levin explained that he was about to play Ray Charles’ “America the Beautiful” because, unlike our President, he know it’s America that makes America great. Or something like that. (I wonder whether Levin’s “America” includes the majority of Americans that voted for Obama and currently approve of his job performance). Either way, the playing of the song was the most pleasant four minutes in the history of conservative talk radio, even more so because it reminded me of one of my favorite speeches ever. (skip to 18:30).

-AR