Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Sen. David Vitter's attack on the 14th amendment has killed irony dead

Every so often, conservative hatred of birthright citizenship erupts like a festering herpes sore on the face of American political discourse. Five years ago, it was Arizona nutjob Russell Pearce, the father of the notorious SB1070 immigration bill, who proposed legislation that would deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States. That bill, of course, went nowhere--in no small part because it's a clear violation of the 14th amendment, as interpreted by 117 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

No matter, though--during this week's debate on amendments to a human trafficking bill, Sen. David Vitter has made it his priority to push for an amendment that would refuse citizenship to children in the United States because of so-called birth tourism--all purely in the guise of reducing human trafficking, of course:
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), citing stories about abuse in “birth tourism” industries, tried to introduce an amendment on Tuesday that would have violated the 14th Amendment by prohibiting children of parents who aren’t already citizens or lawful permanent residents to automatically become U.S. citizens.
Vitter used the same arguments about Native American tribes and the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase that Pearce latched onto so incorrectly. But Sen. Vitter specifically hammered on the practice of birth tourism by Chinese families as a pretext for attacking the 14th amendment. This is not without a small dose of irony: it was the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark that established the practice of birthright citizenship in the first place. That case? whether or not a child born to unnaturalized Chinese parents in the United States would be allowed to claim United States citizenship.

Here's the main thing, though: If Republicans want to go after birthright citizenship, there's a way to do it: propose a constitutional amendment and let's debate it. The 14th amendment is part of our Constitution; the Wong Kim Ark case established jus soli citizenship as the unquestioned law of the land 117 years ago. Overturning that requires a constitutional amendment, not some stupid state legislation in Arizona or an amendment to a Senate bill on human trafficking. That sort of crap if just about scoring cheap political points to please the nativist base at home. If you want to debate whether or not birthright citizenship is the right method for the United States, do it the honest way.

Russ Feingold, once and future Senator (D-WI)

Blogging from mobile so this could be a bit awkward--but PPP has a poll showing former Senator Russ Feingold with a decisive lead over the man who beat him in the 2010 Republican wave year, Ron Johnson:

It's normally a bad sign for an incumbent when you're polling below 50 percent. It's an even worse sign when your opponent is polling at 50 percent. All in all though, it just goes to show that we have two different electorates in this country. The electorate that will send Feingold back to the Senate and deliver its Electoral College votes to Hillary Clinton isn't the same one that voted in Scott Walker. And if all such statewide elections had presidential turnout, Scott Walker would be a trivia footnote instead of the current Republican front runner.

Lindsey wins!

Following up on my post from earlier in the month about Lindsey Horvath: SHE WON! I'm sad that John Heilman didn't win as well, but he has a chance to retake a seat on the council in a special election on June 2nd.

It's a special pleasure to see good friends win elections.