In response to the musings of a reporter about likely GOP proposals in the new Congress, Dee has gone off the deep end.
Her lack of loyalty to the U.S is clearly illustrated by her vociferous objection to the following list of potential 2011 Congressional initiatives which are designed to solve the illegal alien problem:
1. Changing the 14th Amendment, ending Birthright Citizenship
2. Mandatory e-Verify
3. Official English
4. End to Sanctuary Cities
She clearly has no interest in being a part of solution and prefers to remain a part of the problem. She has never overcome her Mexican heritage to become a true American in every sense of the word. The above measures are essential to the preservation of the America we know and love. Her loyalty lies elsewhere and obviously prefers a Mexico Norte to today's America. It is indeed sad that an American citizen can take such a perverted view of the obligations of citizenship. If there was a way to deport citizens with this lack of loyalty, Dee would be the first to go.
Dee asks how an illegal alien birth would be defined if a change in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment occurs. Most would agree that if one of the parents is a citizen that should permit the child to enjoy the citizenship of either parent. Some insist, not unreasonably, that the citizenship of the child should be that of the mother. This is simply a way of recognizing the close connection between mother and child not a way of discriminating against women. These issues are easily resolved once the basic premise of Jus Soli is denied. Whatever the legislative result, it would be applied equally to all borders and all nationalities.
Obviously, the babies of tourists, visa overstays, temporary farm migrant workers, and any others who are here only temporarily or as visitors should not be awarded birthright citizenship. That loophole is the fundamental flaw in the 14th Amendment.
Dee advanced the absurd notion that denying birthright citizenship to the babies of tourists would ruin tourism!
She also wonders about retroactive application. While the retroactive denial of citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, tourists and others is attractive and would be entirely justified, its inclusion in any bill is highly unlikely.
Pro-America remains committed to the Rule of Law but, nevertheless, favors immigration reform, just not the reform supported by La Raza and Dee and their ilk. The difference between the Pro-Americans and the Pro-illegals is that the former honors the rule of law as it is while the latter supports those who have violated or are violating the existing laws. Dee erroneously equates Pro-America’s desire for real reform to the actual violation of the law. But that is the stock-in-trade of the Pro-Illegals not the Pro-Americans. Let’s make it simple for Dee to understand the difference. Here is a simple analogy. If I didn’t like stop signs and was trying to get the law changed, I would continue to honor the stop signs until the change is becomes law. Dee would not. She would ignore the stop signs while she agitates for change. I honor the rule of law; she does not as illustrated by this analogy. This is an exact analogy with regard to illegal aliens.
Real reform would reduce legal immigration to not more than 200,000 each year focused on those most likely to help America remain competitive in the world economy and recover from the largest fiscal catastrophe in its history.
Chain immigrations and the sponsorship of foreign nationals should be ended in any reform bill. The objective should be tax and immigration policies that will stabilize our population rather than allowing it to increase without bounds.
Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.