Republicans and 'illegal' immigrants: Since when has breaking the law been a problem for Republicans?

Migrants from Mexico and Central America have become political footballs this election season (1, 2) -- thanks for the most part to Governor Jan Brewer, Russel "Racial Purity" Pearce, Pearce's baby SB1070, John and Jon (Arizona's Senatorial Do-Nothing Duo), and a herd of Democrats who are trying desperately not to look like progressive cream puffs.

Despite all of the right-wing rhetoric about border violence, the statistics show that the border situation is improving (crime down, crossings down). Yes, gang violence in Mexico-- due to the drug trade and poverty-- is up, but migrant workers aren't the cause of that violence. They are victims-- even more than we are.

Arizona's right-wingers pontificate about migrants breaking our laws! by crossing the border illegally! Given the bevy of crooks and liars-- literally-- that the Arizona Republican Party has put forth as candidates this election season, I'm surprised that breaking the law is a problem.

Check out these links for Andrew Thomas, Tom Horne, Jan Brewer, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Steve May for current examples of Republican corruption and Ev Mecham and J. Fife Symington III for historical reference.)

Some people shrug this off as the wild west, but personally, I'm shocked by this widespread corruption in Arizona's Republican Party. I'm also shocked that the Arizona electorate is duped into voting for these crooks and liars.

I was going to write this, but Arianna Huffington beat me to it

Remember all of the right-wing blather about the Constitution last winter when President Obama was trying to push health care reform through the Congress?

Blah, blah, blah, we have to stick to the Constitution! The Constitution doesn't say the federal government should provide universal health care, so we shouldn't do it!

"It's not in the Constitution!" was used repeatedly as an excuse to do nothing to solve the country's multiple problems. Republicans proudly wore the badge of "Constitutional Conservative"-- until Arizona's chief wing nut Russel "Father-of-SB1070" Pearce came up with another popular white supremacist idea-- anchor babies.

What's a Constitutional Conservative-- a defender of the Constitution's purity-- to do?

The Constitution clearly says that any baby born in the US is a US citizen. There are no qualifications to that statement-- no stipulations about race, ethnicity, religion, parental citizenship-- or exclusion for mixed race Hawaiians born in the early 1960s. For a humorous look at the Congressional debate that took place when the 14th Amendment was passed originally, check out this Daily Show link..."I know it's hard to be tough on babies, but..."

Now that prominent national whities like US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have picked up Pearce's anti-anchor baby idea, things are getting progressively scarier, and right-wingers are coming out of the woodwork to speak out against the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

To put all of this Constitutional rhetoric into perspective, the Huffington Post published Republicans Hot, Cold on Constitution last week. The article is full of interesting factoids about politicians using the Constitution-- when it suits them-- and offering changes when it doesn't. According to Huff Post, Republicans have offered 42 amendments to the Constitution in this session, and the Democrats have offered 27.

Both numbers are shockingly large in my opinion, and all of these amendments-- and the anchor baby rhetoric, in particular-- smack of political grandstanding and just plain hogwash.

Our forefathers-- in their infinite wisdom-- made it really difficult to amend the Constitution-- thank God (or our elected officials would have thrown the country into the abyss in the name of ideology long ago.)



Does anyone remember the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)? (I do, and here is a photo of my ERA bracelet-- none of those plastic things for us feminists. We knew we were going to be wearing these ERA bracelets for a long time as we fought for equality for women.) The ERA was an amendment to the Constitution that would have guaranteed equal rights under any federal, state, or local law and would have prohibited discrimination based upon sex. It received the required 2/3 vote of each house of Congress-- a feat that seems miraculous now-- but failed to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures by the 1982 deadline (10 years after it was originally proposed).

The whities who are blabbing about an anchor baby amendment aren't serious. They're using this issue as another wedge to pit races and ethnicities against each other... divide and conquer, and by the way, don't forget to vote for the wise whitie who can save you from the Hottentots and the Mongol hoards. (Sarcasm here, check out the link.)

All I can say is that it is a sad day in America when anyone outside of Mesa listens to Russel Pearce's ideas.