Neocons Join The Tea Party
Regarding the news that one of the activists killed in the flotilla was an American citizen, Powerline writes:
The facts are not entirely clear, but it appears that Dogan was born in the United States to Turkish parents who returned to Turkey not long thereafter. (The ABC story says he was two years old.) Apparently Dogan had lived in Turkey with his family since that time. He apparently was, in other words, a "birthright citizen," solely by virtue of the fact that his parents were residing in the U.S. when he was born.
If that is the case--and, again, the facts are not yet entirely clear--it is silly to call him an "American of Turkish descent." He, like the other members of his family, was a Turk. The idea that his presence among the dead raises a special diplomatic problem is absurd; if it does, it shouldn't.
Coincidentally, Scott Rasmussen published a poll this morning that found 58 percent of voters favor the abolition of birthright citizenship. I think the majority is right on this issue. Birthright citizenship is an anachronism, and in some respects a dangerous one, in an era when millions of people travel internationally and millions more enter the U.S. illegally, some for the specific purpose of having a baby here.
As for Dogan, it is reported that he was shot five times at close range, four times in the head. If that is correct, it is reasonable to infer that he was one of those attacking Israeli soldiers with a club, knife or other weapon and was shot in self-defense. The Times quotes his brother saying, on behalf of the family, "we were not sorry to hear that he fell like a martyr."
Wow, there's a lot to consider in those paragraphs. First there is the idea that actual American citizens under current law, shouldn't be called Americans. I don't know who will decide which Americans deserve the designation, but perhaps the next teabagger convention could set up a system for the press so they'll know what's appropriate and what isn't. (No profiling please!) This is followed by the use of the phrase "birthright citizen" which I haven't heard before. Is it the politically correct version of "anchor baby?" If so, why would proudly politically incorrect right wingers bother? Call 'em all terrorists and let's be done with all the subterfuge.
And it sounds as though he is suggesting that it's dangerous for people to be having children in this country. Is this because terrorists are planning ahead for future invasions from within? Or is it just that Hispanics are "dangerous" by their very nature? Either way, the idea of tying this particular story to the anchor baby issue is a bold new step in the right's overarching narrative. I'll be looking for more of it.
Probably the most amazing statement in all this is the last paragraph which says that it's "reasonable" to infer that that this person was attacking one of the Israeli commandos with a knife and was shot in self-defense? I suppose it's possible, but one would hardly naturally assume that in the middle of a melee someone amazingly gets shot four times in the head. I knew those IDF commandos were skilled but I didn't know they were that skilled. Indeed, the reasonable inference is usually something quite different. (I'm not making a judgment about the facts in this particular case beyond the four shots to the head, which I don't know, only whether or not it's obvious that a "reasonable inference" of self-defense can be made of that.)
The old neocon "spreadin' democracy" we're all one big happy family of wingnuts is really out of fashion if even the Bush loving Powerline is pushing the 14th amendment repeal line.In fact, even the Bush administration didn't try to make the argument that American citizens who were born of foreign parents shouldn't be accorded their rights. We are seeing a joining of the neocons and the teabaggers in the spirit of shared nativism. It figures. When you strip them down to their essence they are all garden variety paranoid, neo-confederate birchers and not much more. It's all a matter of emphasis.