GEORGIA ON MY MIND
Nathan Deal
|
|
|
|
U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, a Republican
candidate for governor of Georgia, has proposed changing the long-standing
federal policy that automatically grants citizenship to any baby born on U.S.
soil, a move opposed by immigrant rights advocates.
Supporters of Deal's proposal say
"birthright citizenship" encourages illegal immigration and makes
enforcement of immigration laws more difficult. Opponents say the proposed law
wouldn't solve the illegal immigration problem and goes against this country's
traditions of welcoming immigrants.
Automatic citizenship is enshrined in
the 14th Amendment of the
This an example of what I was talking about in a previous blog. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/dikkday48yahoocom/2009/05/o-loo-cee-you-got-some-splaini.php#comments
You see, like w's OLC, we need to stop back a bit when we look at our laws and our Constitution. We need to THINK outside of the box, so to speak.
Now the sixth grader--you know the hypothetical sixth grader that appears to know more than the 'man on the street' confrontations made famous by Leno--might look at that sentence in the 14th Amendment and think: Hey, if I was born here, that makes me a citizen.
Whereas someone like Yoo or Bybee might think: Hey, this clause appears to only refer to freed slaves. And everyone knows that the Mexican slaves that cross our borders and work for $4.00/hr under the table so to speak, are unfreed slaves. So that their children are also unfreed slaves, and, well, this Constitutional Provision could not possibly apply to them and their ilk!!!
And we sure do not need more citizens like this in
I mean, its NO BIG 'DEAL' so to speak. And it certainly is no big deal to Deal to find a new deck to deal from, so to speak. Or at least be able to deal from the bottom of the deck provided by those goddamnable northerners. (Deal refuses to bless himself)
What I admire is how repubs 'frame the issue' and provide those profound catch phrases to further their legislative aims:
They call U.S.-born children of
illegal immigrants "anchor babies" because, when they become adults,
the children can sponsor their parents for legal permanent residency.
Isn't that just precious? Anchor
babies. Brings new meaning to that great American lilt: Anchors Away, does it
not?
I mean, look at how
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the
Now it took
13th Amendment:
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
64% of those in Georgia Prisons, are Black.
29% of the population in
How is that for thinking outside of the Box? Ha!!!
So how hard is it going to be for
Georgia,
Just the same old song
Keeps
Talkin' about
Glad I'm not in
I have an Hispanic name
With that same old song
They'd be mad I came
I said
A song of woe
No peace would I find
How can they be so unkind
The sheriff's arms reach out to me
To put me in the penitentiary
Such unpeaceful dreams I see
The road gangs block my view
Georgia, cruel Georgia, no peace I find
Just the same old song
Keeps Georgia from my mind
Sharecropper farms dot the land
Worked over by Hispanic and Black hands
There is no justice that can really stand
The white man's boot on you
I'm not in Georgia, Georgia, right wing Georgia
No peace, no peace I find
Just the same old song
Keeps Georgia out of my mind
Just that same old song
Keeps Georgia forever out of my mind
Apologies to Ray Charles and Seashell













It's just incredible, the lengths gone to in order to give the pretzel one more twist to make it do what it isn't meant to do in the first place.
May 26, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Giving the pretzel one more twist...Brilliant Flower, just brilliant.
May 26, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention the newfangled poll tax Georgia instituted in 2005 and later overturned. There's a long history of xenophobia/racism in the 'Peach state.
May 26, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mighty peachy of the them, huh. Thanks for the links Miguel. Fifty years and the same old aims by some of these sons of bitches.
May 26, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually it was a US appeals court that overturned the law. What a peach!
May 26, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congressman Nathan Deal is correct.
This law has been misinterpreted as it was strictly meant for emancipated slaves after the Civil War. It was never meant for illegal female immigrants coming to America. Having babies who fraudulently get citizenship. on our soil. So they could access free health care, education and a lot more benefits, unavailable to citizens and legal residents. Learn more NUMBERSUSA.
May 26, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Babies are fraudulent. How quaint!!! Malice aforethought. How delightful!!
May 26, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this, dd. (I was busy most of the day.)
This is simply horrifying! All countries, so far as I know, recognize that anyone born on their shores is entitled to citizenship. This absolutely flies against international law.
I've just been reading how scared repubs are that any opposition to Sotomayor could lead to the equivalent of electoral suicide among Hispanics. So this is just the nail in the coffin for them, isn't it?
Good catch. Kudos, dear dd! :)
May 26, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read this Brittanicus guy above you? According to him babies are attempting to fraudulently procure citizenship.
I will give you an example where a European Country would not grant citizenship based upon where the baby was born.
NAZI GERMANY!!!!
May 26, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, this is (or was) true about modern Germany, as well. I was born in Germany in 1970, but was not granted citizenship because my father was not a German citizen. (Neither was my mother, but in 1970 the law was that your father had to be a German citizen. Obviously, this was a reaction to the number of US servicemen fathering babies to German women.)
I'm glad we don't do that, but there are several modern countries that do require one or the other parent to be a citizen for the child to be a citizen.
May 27, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that Nebton. I actually learned something. I mean YOU WERE THERE. HA
Hard to argue with that!!!
Thank you again!!
May 27, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey DD.
International law was my first thought and my guess is that this rep may not be too know much about that to propose such idiocy. I feel embarassed for this man and for our education system.
Things like this get me rooting for the evolution of the human species:)
Immigration will never be solved by ignorants. It is natural for human beings to reach for a better life for themselves and their children. It is our responsibility to set and enforce our boundaries/limits. An integral solution is called for.
Scapegoating, making others the excuse for our own shortcomings(which is what I feel is behind a lot of this misery...i.e. taking things out on others) is just plain foolishness but clearly when one is at a developmental level such as this rep appears to be... he is not prone to take responsibility.
Again... I energetically rooting and cheering for the evolution of our species so we can put some of this kind BS behind us.
(our area was struck by lightening this weekend... had no service and it destroyed my daughter's computer... it was an internet break forced by nature:)
May 26, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sync, when lightening strikes. Hope your daughter gets recompensed along with a new PC.
"It is natural for human beings to reach for a better life for themselves and their children."
Fine sentiments indeed.
May 26, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
No European country gives citizenship based on where a baby is born. They give it based on the parents' citizenship. The US also gives citizenship based on parents' citizenship if the child is born outside the US.
May 26, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will take a look Desi. But would you really wish to go back say 40 years ago, do some research, find out that Jesus Martinez was born in New Mexico and his parents were not citizens. Or that the parents had only temporary green cards.
And so Jesus Martinez is really not a citizen. And his daughter born 20 years later is therefore not a citizen either. Nor her newly born baby.
COME ON. GIVE ME A BREAK DESI.
May 26, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I'm not sympathetic. People are citizens somewhere, unless as Marx notes there are "special circumstances", in which case the EU has some measure to grant citizenship. A baseball strategy of tagging 3rd base before they tag you out is rather absurd for citizenship, especially with all the traveling people do these days. Hey, I want to give birth in Qatar, oil money for my kid for life!!! Your equation is that I should be worried that some parents lie about citizenship to give their kid citizenship, and it might get found out, so we should just go ahead and give citizenship anyway. (With Cubans it's even more absurd - if the adults just reach the shores they get citizenship). Sorry, I like controlled immigration, whatever the quotas and methods we decide for an immigration policy. Children of citizens should be citizens; allowed immigrants become citizens. If it were 1840 and we had a lot of frontier to fill, I might feel a bit different.
Also, the current policy overwhelmingly favors high Mexican immigration. Why do we want 60% or whatever of our immigrants to be Mexican rather than a smoother blend of Argentinians, Peruvians, Ethiopians, Indians, Russians, Vietnamese, Irish, Iraqis and so on? We typically have immigration in waves, but we don't have to encourage tsunamis.
May 27, 2009 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
(EU countries will give citizenship based on location of birth in some specialised circumstances, and in the event the child would otherwise be stateless. Notably laws concerning residency are somewhat different than in the U.S., too.)
May 26, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this Karl. Thank you very much!!!!
May 26, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong, atomic bomb guy. Every EU country has a method to gain citizenship if you are born in the country, and you can gain citizenship regardless of where your parents were born, even if they are not citizens of the country.
link
For instance if you are born in Sweden, Germany or France of foreign parents you can become a citizen if you meet some basic requirements, like being age 14-23 and requesting citizenship, have lived in country for 5 years, have ties to the country, and reside in country. In the last ten years all EU countries have a route to citizenship for all who are born there.
May 27, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Racism is alive and inhabits a long history in the immigration discussion.
We can’t let this Deal go down without talking about race. You really nailed it. Thanks.
Here’s a recent article about segregated proms in Georgia NOW.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24prom-t.html?_r=2
May 26, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Strato (Blesses himself). It must be confronted wherever it shows its ugly head. ha
May 26, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. From the NYT article:
Hmmm. Tradition?
May 26, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S. also denied birthright (jus soli) citizenship based on race. Most notably in the case of slaves and of members of Native American tribes. Denial of birthright citizenship was critical to the maintenance of slavery as children of slaves would have been born citizens (and therfore by law "free").
Native Americans were denied birthright citizenship until 1924.
The original naturalization legislation required:
The "free" component was largely to deny indentured servants citizenship eligibility.
If Deal, or others, want to challenge the birthright citizenship of immigrants (legal or undocumented) then they should challenge it under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and not by spouting rhetoric and pushing for new legislation.
The use of citizenship criteria (birthright, by blood - jus sanguins, and through nationalization, has consistently been a racial issue in the United States.
Lou Dobbs, and others, loudly spout that their fight against "illegals" is not racist. This is patently not true. Whether they are intending it to be racist or not, their arguments are received as legitimating racist attacks on people perceived to be illegals of Mexican descent. The focus is not on undocumented immigrants of any other race - including those of European, "Asian," or Middle Eastern descent.
As far as Deal goes, the guy is not playing with a full deck - IMO.
May 26, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
See Rowan, you chime in at just the right time, with the goods in hand. Thank you for this. Very well thought out.
We need a little research from time to time.
May 26, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No need to apologize on my behalf, dd. Only because I'm forced to make a choice in order to drive and vote am I citizen of any state in the US. I would much prefer "Citizen of the World".
But since I'm forced, I chose the lesser of two evils and am thus officially a resident of Florida. Not that I'm sayin' the Florida legislature is such a great bastion of deep thinkers, either, but when compared to Georgia's, well, let's just say I picked Florida.
Another asshat from Georgia, Paul Broun, has proposed that the year 2010 be made "The Year of the Bible". There is nothing too asshattery for this crew, it seems.
May 26, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
A little tongue in cheek. You explained Atlanta to me. Thank God. (blesses himself and seashell)
May 26, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, an oasis of lovely blue surrounded by an ugly red. (Thanks for the blessing! Can't have too many of those.)
May 26, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey,
Can someone tell me the origin of the term 'asshat'. It seems to be unique to TPM or I just never heard of it before (feeling very ill informed)but having expanded its use to the practice of asshattery I thought perhaps I should find out. The meaning I believe I am picking up quite well but if you care to elaborate on that for kicks... it could be fun?
May 26, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well someone found that this buttsecks and truck nuts came from some other site and I actually heard them on Jon Stewart.
I do not like the hole thing. It is toooo gross for me. I am probably stuck in some freudian poopy state of development or something.
I saw Asshat shortly after I showed up. It seems less obscene and since I stopped or at least cut down on obscenities--depending on my mood--I adopted it.
the end
May 27, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. I think the Wonkettes tm'd butt sects and truck nutz. It was funny to hear Stewart use 'trucknutz' recently. As Q says below, it is my memory that dij defined and elaborated 'asshat'.
May 27, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
....and also ;)
May 27, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clarifications everyone. I first heard the term and have often heard the term used by LisB:) Now, when I start using and elaborating with the term, I can do so with confidence.
Sorry for having a bit of fun midst your serious blog dick. Since my only response to asshats such as Mr Deal is to cheer on the evolution of our species, I was distracted;)
May 27, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only do this FOR FUN in the first place Sync!!!hahaha.
You enliven the blogs around here, even when you are not blogging.
And I love it when I get 50-60 comments. And I know you do too!!!
May 27, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo. She's the Queen of all ass words. Asshat, asshelmet, assacious, and many many more.
We have her permission to use it. ;-)
May 27, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't ass-ume the ass-hat without ass-king. Ass-pecially when you've been ass-ociating with the Hive di-ass-pora.
May 27, 2009 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize that you are 'associating with the 'hive', right Des?
May 27, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Asshat and asshattery are very common terms, Synch. The Urban dictionary defines Asshat as:
and asshattery as:The earliest known origin of the word "Asshat" is somewhat unknown and much disputed. However, the earliest usage that I know of is from a 1998 Google Group post by somebody named "Selena".
Asshat should not be confused with the term "Assrocket", which as far as I know is a term used exclusively for John Hinderaker of the conservative blog fame, PowerLine. But, alas, I am out of links, so will leave it to you to explore the wonders of Assrocket's world. Just do teh Google for the term.
Hoped this helped. :-)
May 27, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geez.
We needs lots more seashells there
=D
May 26, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes we doooooo Bwak!!!
May 26, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. More Seashells.
Wish I had a protective outer layer too.
A more effective conchology for ideology.
May 26, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very true. I myself have feathers of iron. They rust sometimes and get a little heavy.
=D
May 26, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got my vote!
May 26, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paging Maggie two shells?
May 27, 2009 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who reads the Constitution anymore? That's so 18th century...
May 26, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahaha Crow you have a point. But why not back to basics!!!
May 26, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha ha, Now they are afraid someones going to vote and they Replicans sure as shootin cant win that way! I sure hope Deal knows how to wash his own dishes,mow his own lawn,get rid of his own garbage,repair his own roads,and all the other things sub wage immigrants do in this country.They are taking our jobs taking our jobs our jobs, yeah and aint you glad they do, if not you can have em back Mr Deal Pickle?
Thanks Dickday for all you pointed out, some super good analysis and painful truths.
May 26, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much for the kind words DonDi. Much appreciated.
Yeah. Who is going to clean up the dog doo doo on his lawn?
And give him bj's in the pantry. ha!!1
May 26, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot fathom what it is about a people who consistently want to toss out some or all of the Constitution because it's troublesome.
And as usual, it's the ones hurrahing themselves hoarse over the war dead, and shouting "Love it or Leave it!", who cannot live with the Constitution.
It's less a case of "A Republic, if you can keep it" but more of "A Republic, if you can find it in your tiny mind to endure the liberty it bestows."
May 26, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got that right Chthonic!!! What is it that makes us American anyway. And with the oldest constitution on the planet, a document that others have attempted to emulate...We should be so proud of it. Especially after 1868.
Thank you for chiming in.
May 26, 2009 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But wait, there's more! If you like asshatery Georgia legislative style let's not forget that the Georgia State Senate on April 1, by a vote of 43-1, threatened to secede from and even disband the United States!
Yes it's true, not be outdone by Governor Haircut in TX and Michelle Bachmann (R-Crazytown) they decided this act was necessary cuz that new colored fella who was elected president wanted to give them money.
May 26, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark, I need a link or somethin. I have to see this.
Maybe Georgia Legislature? APRIL FOOLS DAY?
Not real funny!!!
I hate right wing crap.
May 26, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, dd, not April Fools Day. It is Senate Resolution 632, with the innocuous sounding title of Jeffersonian Principles; affirming state's rights.
According to this latest in Georgian wingnuttia, if the Federal Government takes any action that in the opinion of Georgia's Republicans, exceeds its Constitutional Power including Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; then the USA can be disbanded.
According to Jay Bookman:
The Resolution itself has no punch in the world of the law and reality, but it does serve to put Georgia's asshattery on full display.
May 27, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Seashell. I knew Mark wasn't playing April fools in May. What I was looking at was the April 1, date of the bill.
Thank you, as always for the ANSWER. HA
We need you at this site you know. hahaahaha
May 27, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Deal can get the Native American vote....
May 26, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
AJM, what did he do, give em a casino?
It is like there is a parallel universe or something!
May 26, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
May 27, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
These are a few of Nathan’s Deals:
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border.
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent.
http://www.issues2000.org/GA/Nathan_Deal_Immigration.htm
May 27, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The kind of guy that embarrasses you at home and abroad. Just a real prick. ha
May 27, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink