Rick Perry Is A Tenth Amendment Hypocrite

First it was same-sex marriage, now it's a abortion. Rick Perry hasn't met a Constitutional Amendment usurping state power he doesn't like.

Just last week, I noted that Texas Governor, and probable Presidential candidate, Rick Perry had reversed his previous states right’s position about same-sex marriage and come out in favor of a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Now, he’s done it again.

Last week, Perry told reporters in Houston that abortion is an issue that should be left to the states:

Despite holding personal pro-life beliefs, Texas Gov. Rick Perry categorized abortion as a states’ rights issue today, saying that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it should be up to the states to decide the legality of the procedure.

“You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” Perry told reporters after a bill signing in Houston.  “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, ‘We’d rather not have states decide that.'”

That didn’t sit well with some so-called “pro-life” groups:

The Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser asked Perry to understand the importance of examining abortion through a federal lens.

“Governor Perry has been a long time friend of the pro-life movement and we welcome and appreciate all the work he has done for women and unborn children as Governor,” she said.  “We agree that certainly there is a lot that can be done at the state level to reduce the number of abortions, but that does not diminish or eliminate the federal government’s responsibility to protect human life in all of its stages.”

Just as he did when his statements that individual states should be able to decide whether to legalize same-sex marriage were criticized by hard-right social conservatives, Perry quickly flip-flopped and came out in support of a Constitutional Amendment that would outlaw abortion:

[Perry’s] spokeswoman, Katherine Cesinger, said by e-mail today: “Gov. Perry is proudly pro-life and successfully championed strong pro-life legislation in Texas including parental consent, this year’s sonogram bill and a budget that significantly defunds abortions in Texas. The governor has long supported overturning Roe v. Wade, and would support amending the U.S. Constitution, with the backing of Congress and the states, to protect innocent life.”

Given the speed with which he flip-flopped on these two issues, there’s no reason that any future comment that Perry makes about the 10th Amendment or the relationship of the Federal Government to the states should be trusted. He’s shown himself to be a complete hypocrite who will change positions on this issue it is politically expedient. It seems fairly obvious now that the paeans he has made to the 10th Amendment during his time as Texas Governor as his political speeches against Obama Administration initiatives such as the Affordable Care Act were just positions he adopted to appear to the newest meme among activist conservatives. It also tells us that his little jabs about Texas secession were just red meat nonsense meant to rile up the crowd.

Of course, it’s no surprise that he might change his tune now that he’s likely running for President:

It’s easy for governors to advocate for states’ rights: Doing so effectively maximizes the power they wield. Once a candidate makes it to the Oval Office, however, his or her power is diminished by permitting states to go their own ways.

Presidents, being power hungry, are unreliable defenders of what Perry is espousing.

Perry isn’t even a candidate yet and he’s already proven himself to be unreliable:

he’s reinforced the impression that he’ll cave on matters of federalism at the first sign of political expediency. Granted, he is hardly alone in being opportunistic about states rights and local control, but it is strange that he made such a point of touting his 10th Amendment bona fides and waxing eloquent on the beauty of local decision-making, only to quickly reverse himself after the inevitable blow-back. Was he unaware that social cons would object? Then again, few voters actually care about federalism, so maybe these flip flops only help his electoral chances. I wouldn’t be surprised if he reverses himself on medical marijuana next.

Count on it.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Law and the Courts, US Politics, , ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Chad S says:

    Anyone who brings up the 10th amendment is a hypocrite or an idiot.

  2. Tsar Nicholas says:

    I was wondering when the Internet left would become unhinged about Rick Perry.

    Honestly, if Perry is the nominee and then unseats Rambobama next November I will put everything I own into the big pharmaceutical companies. The sales of Zoloft, Wellbutrin, Paxil, Xanax and Prozac will be off the charts, Sparky.

  3. Tenther says:

    This is one of the more stupid posts I have ever seen. You should probably read his book, which articulates this in far greater detail. You can be for the Tenth Amendment but also be for a Human Life Amendment. In the meantime, states decide, but you work toward creating a national consensus that protects life above all else.

  4. ddennis says:

    @Tenther:

    Yeah? Well, what I find hypocritical is how you so-called conservatives pick-and-choose when and on what issues you want government to interfere in people’s lives. You phony Christians kill me with always trying to have it both ways.

  5. PD Shaw says:

    Some of us simply tune out when a politician says the first thing we need to do is amend the Constitution.

  6. ponce says:

    I was wondering when the Internet left would become unhinged about Rick Perry.

    Perry is just a dumber, meaner George W. Bush.

    A guy who has become a millionaire working for the government his entire adult life.

    Just like with Sarah Palin, every Democrat is hoping this clownish cracker wins the Republican nomination.

  7. Jay Tea says:

    So let’s hear the arguments why abortion and marriage are a federal area of authority, with appropriate citations to the Constitution. Roe v. Wade is one of the worst-reasoned Supreme Court rulings in history.

    Perry’s stance regarding a pro-life amendment is entirely consistent. Roe v. Wade invented a Constitutional right out of whole cloth, and an amendment would drive a stake through that once and for all.

    Liberals hate the 10th Amendment because it enforces limits on federal power. Let’s look at the actual text of it:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Here’s another challenge, for those who are running it down: just what does it mean to you? It’s the highest law of the land, on a par with freedom of speech and religion and trial by jury.

    J.

  8. Ron Beasley says:

    @ponce:

    Perry is just a dumber, meaner George W. Bush.

    Not entirely accurate; Perry is a real Southerner who is still fighting the Civil War. The dumber part is probably accurate.

  9. WR says:

    @Tsar Nicholas: Yeah, you should invest in execution drugs, too. There are lots of innocent people for him to kill if he’s president.

  10. WR says:

    @Tenther: You mean protects unborn life. As soon as they’re out of the womb, they’re takers and parasites — or worse, women — and they should be thrown into the garbage with anyone else who isn’t a member of the Tea Party.

  11. WR says:

    @Jay Tea: Jay’s all for freedom. Freedom for state governments to regulate the most personal aspects of people’s live, from their sexuality to control over their own bodies. For some reason he thinks it’s tyranny if the federal government has absolute control over you and freedom if a state government does.

  12. @Jay Tea:

    Perry’s stance regarding a pro-life amendment is entirely consistent. Roe v. Wade invented a Constitutional right out of whole cloth, and an amendment would drive a stake through that once and for all.

    I’m firmly opposed to driving stakes through through the hearts of constitutional rights during the 887th trimester.

  13. David says:

    Perry is a states rights guy, unless other states have a different opinion on something he doesn’t like. The only way his constitutional amendment on abortion can be consistent, is if it allows each state to set its own rules. Guessing it doesn’t though.

  14. Hey Norm says:

    This is just more classic right wingnut extremism. They hate activist judges unless their being activists for their causes. They want small government but they want the government in everyones business. They rant about sharia law but will impose their religious superstitions on me.
    I’m not pleased with Obama’s performance over the debt ceiling, but Perry is the answer? Pub-lease.

  15. An Interested Party says:

    I was wondering when the Internet left would become unhinged about Rick Perry.

    Oh my, so now it is “unhinged” to point out hypocrisy in a politician and Doug has become part of the “Internet left” for making that point…

    Honestly, if Perry is the nominee and then unseats Rambobama next November I will put everything I own into the big pharmaceutical companies.

    Save your money, Sparky, as Perry would lose that race…

  16. waltm says:

    @Jay Tea:

    Here’s another challenge, for those who are running it down: just what does it mean to you? It’s the highest law of the land, on a par with freedom of speech and religion and trial by jury.

    However, after the events of 1832, 1861-1865, 1957, 1986, the clause has become a convenient point to cover as part of a general anti-DC spiel and a source of flame wars without end or real world consequence.

  17. sam says:

    You know, I’m convinced Jay comes over here for the intellectual stimulation. I mean, whenever he posts something off the wall at Wizbang, all the little wizbangers line up in the comments and collectively say something like, “Far out, man.” “Right on, Jay.” “You tell ’em, Bud.” Here, when he sends up something goofy, he gets called on it. I think he finds it refreshing.

  18. @David:

    Perry is a states rights guy, unless other states have a different opinion on something he doesn’t like.

    That sums it up

  19. michael reynolds says:

    What’s funny to me is that anyone thinks conservatives take the constitution seriously.

    The constitution is like the Bible: everybody’s bitch. It does whatever you want it to do. It says whatever you want it to say. And so long as people get what they want, so long as they get their way, they don’t give a rat’s ass about anything else.

  20. Hey Norm says:

    @ MR…
    Well they are both open to interpretation.
    One is a work of fiction…even if based on some kernel of fact. If.

  21. Console says:

    @Jay Tea:

    I love the bait and switch here. Roe v. Wade places abortion in the hands of individual rights, not in the hands of the federal government. A repeal of DOMA would place marriage completely in the hands of the states and require the federal government to recognize ALL state marriages i.e. recognize a state exercising its power.

    Just admit you’re an authoritarian. Stop trying to wrap your arguments up in faux constitutionalism.

  22. Hey Norm says:

    So today Steve King (idiot/Iowa) came out against birth control. It’s all about the control of American uteruses. It’s not about States rights or Federal jurisdiction. It’s about total control by jokers like King.

  23. Hey Norm says:

    And Perry.

  24. @Jay Tea: The problem, of course, Jay, is determining exactly which powers are, in fact, fit the categories laid out it the 10th amendment, I know many people think that that is an easy (nay, simple) delineation, but we have been fighting over it since the Founding generation (see, for example, McCullough v. Maryland (1819), as one simple example or ).

    As such, it is all fine and good to say that the 10th Amendment says what it says. That is, however, just the beginning of a conversation not, as you seem to think is, the end of said conversation.

    And while I am no fan of Roe v. Wade it is, as Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearings, “the law of the land.” As such, your views on the quality of its content are irrelevant in terms of its legal standing.

  25. Jay Tea says:

    OK, I got it: to the vast majority, the Constitution only means what they want it to mean, and since they don’t like the 10th Amendment, it’s been essentially nullified. Got it.

    And I’m authoritarian? This from the folks who think the Commerce Clause is a blank check on federal power, just to cite one example? One of the challenges to ObamaCare is to ask “if the individual mandate is permitted under the Commerce Clause, what sort of activity would not fall under it?” I asked a couple of very simple questions — what are the Constitutional underpinnings of Roe v. Wade, and what does the 10th Amendment mean — and note how many actual answers I got. One.

    James: thanks for actually addressing the subject. I would respectfully point out that Plessy v. Ferguson was also “law of the land” for over half a century before it was successfully challenged and overturned. That’s one of the strengths of the system — nothing is permanent; it can be challenged and changed. The process to doing so is complicated and cumbersome, so it can’t be done on a whim, but it is possible.

    J.

  26. rodney dill says:

    @Chad S:
    You just brought it up Chad.

  27. sam says:

    @Jay Tea:

    OK, I got it: to the vast majority, the Constitution only means what they want it to mean…

    That’s one of the strengths of the system — nothing is permanent; it can be challenged and changed. The process to doing so is complicated and cumbersome, so it can’t be done on a whim, but it is possible.

    Show of hands. How many think Jay is blissfully unaware of the problem in that?

  28. Jay Tea says:

    @sam: No problem there. The Constitution outlines just how it can be changed, and it has been used quite a few times in our history. 18 times, I believe. And there are other ways, such as Supreme Court rulings that interpret the Constitution.

    Just which of those methods nullified the 10th Amendment, anyway? I understand that the current administration’s policy is “the law is whatever we say it is,” as exemplified by the UnWar in Libya, the implementation of the never-passed DREAM Act, the ignoring of immigration laws and refusing anyone else to enforce them, the setting aside of the bankruptcy proces for GM and Chrysler, and having tax cheats like Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel in charge of tax policy, but not all of us have that attitude.

    J.

  29. hey norm says:

    “…the folks who think the Commerce Clause is a blank check on federal power…”

    Blank Check is the typical BS you spew…but the Supreme Court has been pretty damn clear on the powers of that clause.

    “…the ignoring of immigration laws…”

    More typical BS spewing forth from you…direct from Fox News…when the facts are:
    Illegal Immigration was down In 2010
    Deportations Have Increased
    Seizures Of Drugs and Weapons Along Border Have Increased.
    Deportations Of Convicted Criminals Are At Their Highest Levels.
    The U.S.-Mexico Border Is More Fortified Now Than It Was Even Five Years Ago
    There Are Currently More Border Patrol Agents Than Ever Before In The History Of This Country – Obama Signed $600 Million Border Security Bill For More Border Patrol Agents And Customs Inspectors.

  30. Neil Hudelson says:

    @hey norm:

    Don’t you dare bring up facts when talking about immigration!!!

  31. sam says:

    @Jay Tea:

    No problem there. The Constitution outlines just how it can be changed, and it has been used quite a few times in our history. 18 times, I believe. And there are other ways, such as Supreme Court rulings that interpret the Constitution.

    Ah, but there is the problem (again), at least for those who reject the living constitution. That is, those who reject the idea that the constitution, as Jefferson said, belongs to the living — that its provisions need to be interpreted in accordance with contemporary standards of justice and moral sensibility. If you’re not one of those folks who reject the concept of the living constitution, or the understanding that it’s based on, then my apologies. But somehow I think you do reject that idea, since you lodged the primal criticism: “OK, I got it: to the vast majority, the Constitution only means what they want it to mean”.

    I would respectfully point out that Plessy v. Ferguson was also “law of the land” for over half a century before it was successfully challenged and overturned

    But Plessy was overturned, or rather the “separate but equal” doctrine was overturned, not by constitutional amendment, but by a judicial tribunal in Brown vs. Board of Education. For a lot of folks, this was the beginning of liberal judicial usurpation of the “real” constitution, of the rise of the despised living constitution. It was the beginning of judicial activism of the kind hated on the right. And that’s why I said there was for you, who I’m sure rejects left-wing judicial activism, something problematic in what you wrote. Or is really just a matter of it being that Supreme Court decisions that accord with your standards of justice and morality (Brown v. Board of Education) are not instances of judicial activism and those that do not (Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut ) are?

  32. PD Shaw says:

    sam, the need for most Constitutional amendments has been the result of bad Supreme Court precedent. The ones involving voting rights would be notable exceptions.

  33. sam says:

    PD, do you really think the term “bad Supreme Court precedent” is noncontroversial?

  34. @Jay Tea:

    the ignoring of immigration laws and refusing anyone else to enforce them

    Speaking of what’s in the constitution, where does it grant either the federal government or the states the power to limit immigration? The federal government has the power to set rules for naturalization, so it has the power to decide whether or not those immigrants are elligible to become citizens, but it says nothing about limiting their ability to come here to begin with.

  35. Jay Tea says:

    @hey norm:
    A splendid example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

    Illegal immigration is down and deportation is up largely because of the economy.

    Do those “seizures of weapons and drugs” include the ones the federal government deliberately sold to the Mexican drug cartels?

    “More fortified” is meaningless — if it’s 0.01% better, then your statement is accurate. I recall that the planned real fence was replaced with a “virtual fence,” which was later admitted to be a failure.

    And I recall those border patrol agents were being dispatched in utter disregard for where they might do the most good, and part of that “improvement” involved putting in some seriously expensive and pointless border crossing stations along the Canadian border. For example, one of those crossing stations — Whitetail, Montana — was slated to get a $15 million expansion, while it serves less than three cars a day and three trucks a month. And a lot of those other expansions were pork-barrel projects that did squat for actually increasing border security.

    http://daytonabeachmagazine.com/secret-process-benefits-pet-projects.html

    Nice try, but nope. Simply throwing money at a problem ain’t the solution.

    And I was referring to the Obama administration not only refusing to enforce immigration laws, but actually suing states that tried to take up their slack.

    J.

  36. Jay Tea says:

    @Stormy Dragon: There is no Constitutional provision for dealing with the federal government simply refusing to live up to its obligations. This is a prime example. The refusal of the Democratically-controlled Congress to even start a budget process in over two years is another.

    Personally, I found it a bit entertaining to rationalize the Arizona and Alabama laws as within the “penumbras” of the “living Constitution’s 10th Amendment.” It’s not much of a stretch to say that “powers abandoned by the federal government” are also up for grabs by the several states.

    How would YOU recommend dealing with a situation where the federal government not only actively refuses to enforce its own laws, but fights like hell to keep anyone else from doing it, either?

    J.

  37. @Jay Tea:

    There is no Constitutional provision for dealing with the federal government simply refusing to live up to its obligations.

    Well, thanks for begging the question.

    How would YOU recommend dealing with a situation where the federal government not only actively refuses to enforce its own laws, but fights like hell to keep anyone else from doing it, either?

    Since the laws in question were not within the federal government’s power to pass to begin with, I would recommend not dealing with it.

  38. Jay Tea says:

    @Stormy Dragon: Defining and defending one’s borders is one of the most fundamental definitions of a nation-state — and that includes deciding who can come in, and under what circumstances.

    Further, Article I, Section 8:

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    Works for me…

    Further,

    Since the laws in question were not within the federal government’s power to pass to begin with, I would recommend not dealing with it.

    I find that incredibly offensive. If a law is wrong in some way, then repeal it or challenge it in court. To just leave it on the books and ignore it is… well, obscene.

    J.

  39. @Jay Tea:

    Defining and defending one’s borders is one of the most fundamental definitions of a nation-state — and that includes deciding who can come in, and under what circumstances.

    So since the US did not have any sort of legal restrictions on immigration until the Emergency Quota Act, your position is that the US was not actually a nation until 1921? You know, suddenly your comments here make a lot more sense. All this time when you talked about the Founding Fathers, I thought you were talking about the actual founding fathers and not Woodrow Wilson.

    Further, Article I, Section 8:

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    As mentioned earlier, naturalization (the process by which someone becomes a citizen) is not immigration.

  40. sam says:

    @Jay Tea:

    How would YOU recommend dealing with a situation where the federal government not only actively refuses to enforce its own laws, but fights like hell to keep anyone else from doing it, either?

    Deportation of illegal immigrants increases under Obama administration

    In a bid to remake the enforcement of federal immigration laws, the Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants and auditing hundreds of businesses that blithely hire undocumented workers.

    The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration’s 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007. The pace of company audits has roughly quadrupled since President George W. Bush’s final year in office.

    Try and keep up, OK?

  41. Jay Tea says:

    @sam: You wanna play dueling quotes? Fine with me.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/did-obama-enact-dream-act/

    Q: Did President Obama “enact” the DREAM Act by executive order to give “amnesty” to 20 million illegal immigrants?

    A: No. But the administration adopted a policy of giving “particular care” before deporting students, military veterans and others deemed to be low risk, while concentrating on felons, gang members and threats to national security.

    In other words, the Obama administration has decided to implement a bill that has not passed into law.

    Further, “naturalization” was part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now renamed Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “Immigration” is almost always a crucial part of the “naturalization” process.

    J.

  42. Jay Tea says:

    One final point: all those efforts you cite do NOT address the illegal alien concerns addressed by the Arizona and Alabama laws. All they are, are attempts to say “but look what else I am doing!”

    J.

  43. @Jay Tea:

    I find that incredibly offensive. If a law is wrong in some way, then repeal it or challenge it in court. To just leave it on the books and ignore it is… well, obscene.

    Well, get your smelling salts, but this is actually pretty common. The statutes, bother federal and state, are littered with old law that no one enforces but haven’t been repealed either. And while I certainly would like to see the laws repealed, I find it hard to get particularly horrified about what is really just a housekeeping task.

    As an example, my state, Pennsylvania, still has a law requiring people driving between sundown and sunup to pull over every mile and launch a flare to warn people of their approach.

    Personally, I don’t find the fact our skies aren’t filled with thousands of flares every evening as people drive home from work to be particularly obscene.

  44. Neil Hudelson says:

    @sam:,

    Don’t you know that deportations are only up because the economy is down? Does that make any sense? It doesn’t have to! Jay Tea says its so!

    A year ago when i was living in southern Texas, I remember seeing The Economy out rounding up illegal immigrants and deporting them all the time.

  45. Jay Tea says:

    Unemployment in Mexico is around 5.6%. In the US, 9.2%. Plus, as noted, states are passing laws cracking down on illegal aliens — the Obama administration’s fighting them, but they’re still trying. So some are going home, some are staying home, and some aren’t fighting when they’re caught and threatened with deportation.

    On the other hand, south of the border you’re far more likely to get killed by an Obama administration-sold gun wielded by a member of a drug cartel, but there are always tradeoffs…

    J.

  46. sam says:

    Jay, let me understand this:

    But the administration adopted a policy of giving “particular care” before deporting students, military veterans and others deemed to be low risk, while concentrating on felons, gang members and threats to national security.

    Note the “before deporting” — You’re of the opinion that an illegal immigrant’s service in the US military ought not to be taken into consideration when contemplating his or her deportation? BTW, you do know, right, that the first serviceman killed in action is Iraq was an illegal immigrant?

    From, Fallen Heroes of Operation Iraqi Freedom

    Marine Cpl. Jose A. Garibay

    21, of Costa Mesa, California. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

    The suburban house where Garibay lived has an American flag in front, as you might expect, and a Mexican one as well, for the country where he was born, two months before he made the trip to the United States with his mother, Simona. Except for speaking Spanish at home—and even that isn’t all that unusual—he was a typical Orange County kid, playing football for his high school and listening to Marilyn Manson, before joining the Marines right out of high school in —2000. He didn’t want his mother to worry, so he hid the fact that he’d been ordered into combat, but in early March he wrote her from Kuwait, sounding homesick: he asked her to send some of his favorite Mexican candy and a CD of sentimental ranchera music. “That’s the first time he was ever interested in Mexican music,” said his sister Crystal, 18.

    He also sent another letter, tape-recorded, to his uncle, thanking him for everything he’d done for the family and wondering if he’d make it back from Iraq alive. And to a former teacher he wrote: “I want to defend the country I plan to become a citizen of.” He never got the chance: on March 23 he was killed in a fire fight near An Nasiriya with Iraqis who had deceived the Americans by feigning surrender.

    I guess we won’t worry about him not being deported. In a final letter to his girlfriend, he wrote:

    We are freedom’s answer to fear. We do not bargain with terror. We stalk it, corner it, take aim and kill it. [Source]

    Really, Jay. Where in the fvck is your head?

  47. WR says:

    @Jay Tea: That treasonous president, focusing on deporting felons, gang members and threats to national security before students and US soldiers. You should definitely urge your Congressman to start impeachment procedures right away.

  48. WR says:

    @Jay Tea: No, they’re an attempt to fix the immigration problem, as opposed to making it a felony to have brown skin around white folks.

  49. WR says:

    @sam: Where is it usually?

  50. Jay Tea says:

    @sam: Nowhere in that account does it say he was an illegal immigrant. And, considering he enlisted in the Marine Corps, that’s strong circumstantial evidence that he was in the United States legally. Further, he aspired to be a police officer — another unlikely career choice for an illegal alien.

    So, to me, it looks like you’re smearing a genuine fallen hero by implying that he was an illegal alien with nothing to back it up, while ignoring evidence (not proof, but more proof than you have offered) that he was in the United States legally.

    I just did a quick check, and found a second page about him, and it’s very similar — including the implication that he was a legal citizen. I am fairly comfortable that the armed services — especially the Marine Corps — checks very carefully the citizenship or immigration status of its applicants.

    One of my main motivations for being mad about illegal aliens is that they want to “cut in line” ahead of legal immigrants, like (presumably) Corporal Garibay. And I get really pissed at people who conflate legal immigrants and illegal immigrants to make their pro-illegal-alien points.

    Unless you have some kind of citation that Cpl. Garibay was an illegal alien, you really ought to apologize for being a shameless piece of $#!+.

    J.

  51. sam says:

    I do apologize if I mischaracterized the Cpl.’s citizenship status. I was relying on this:

    The suburban house where Garibay lived has an American flag in front, as you might expect, and a Mexican one as well, for the country where he was born, two months before he made the trip to the United States with his mother, Simona.

    Evidently, he was what is called a “green card soldier” — a member of the armed forces that has been granted status of permanent legal resident. I should have been more diligent in the research.

  52. hey norm says:

    Short JTea:
    “The facts you provided do indeed prove me wrong, so I will make up crazy shit so that it appears your facts prove me right.”
    Sigh…

  53. Jay Tea says:

    @sam: Well said, sam. I withdraw the vehemence of my prior response. To be perfectly candid, though, there is no concrete evidence of his immigration status — but a very strong circumstantial one that he was here legally.

    In a related vein, I’ve often kicked around the idea of an American “foreign legion” where illegals could trade service for citizenship. I don’t think it could quite work, but I think it’s worth looking into.

    J.

  54. sam says:

    Well, this does seem to indicate that there are illegals serving in armed forces, and the government knows it:

    But the administration adopted a policy of giving “particular care” before deporting students, military veterans and others deemed to be low risk, while concentrating on felons, gang members and threats to national security.

    Green card soldiers who are veterans, absent some gnarly circumstances, shouldn’t be subject to deportation, I’d think.

  55. Jay Tea says:

    Alternately, sam, it could be veterans who have overstayed their visas. They were legal while they served, but their status expired after discharge.

    That’s a significant percentage of illegal aliens — came here legally for a set time, then didn’t leave when they were supposed to. Obama’s Aunt Zeituni, for example. They aren’t all border jumpers — those are just the most… um… “photogenic.” Letting a visa expire doesn’t make for good video, like climbing a fence is.

    In fact, I’d wager that that would be the most likely explanation. Aided and abetted by the policy being inspired by the DREAM Act, which included “military service” as a legal option for illegals looking to legitimize their status. Tossing in “veterans” makes it look more compassionate, even though I really wager that the number of illegal aliens who are veterans of the US armed forces is extremely small.

    J.

  56. sam says:

    More years ago than I care to remember, I served with a couple of Canadians. This was during the period when we had the draft. They’d tarried a bit to long down south, and the law then was, if did that you’d get drafted into the Army. They joined the Marines instead.

  57. ratufa says:

    @Jay Tea:

    In a related vein, I’ve often kicked around the idea of an American “foreign legion” where illegals could trade service for citizenship. I don’t think it could quite work, but I think it’s worth looking into.

    The DREAM act has provisions for a version of that idea.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act

  58. Jay Tea says:

    @sam: They avoided going into the Army.. by enlisting in the Marine Corps.

    OK…

    Oh, those wacky Canadians…

    J.

  59. sam says:

    They referred to themselves as “soldiers of fortune”…

  60. Jay Tea says:

    I bet it was more like “soldiers of fortune, eh?”

    J.