Two-faced politics...or not?

Senator Rand Paul

(This blog was originally posted by tgdindenmark1, 14 April, 2013)

“No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself, and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.” 

Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter.

It has been a very long week; the kind of week which seems to have no end..and the whole idea for which a weekend coming near seemed by Wednesday to be as fictitious as the myth of the unicorn. Like so many others, I have the pleasure of working full-time. And unlike many, this job is in addition to getting a non-profit organization running at full pace, which, mind you, was a concept which also seemed, by Thursday, as fictitious as (yes, you figured it out) the weekend. By the time Friday afternoon came around and the daily ritual including turning off the computer, followed consequently by gathering countless coffee cups, (which are somehow placed by other employees everywhere other than inside the office kitchen dishwasher), switching the coffee machine to “off” mode, a quick and professional “good bye” to the colleague who is the very cause of my ability to maintain a perfect poker face due to her constant not-so-professional remarks. Thanks to her, my ability to remain expressionless, much like a person with a face soaked in Botox, has now been raised to that of level expert. After a quick check in the bathroom mirror only to ensure that the non-descript job had not, in fact, turned me into a little ugly forest troll (at least not yet-although I fear it is only a matter of time), the weekend of writing could finally begin.

Earlier this week, while checking Twitter for tweets pertaining to immigration, I couldn’t help noticing the tweet from The Telegraph presenting breaking news with the headline: “Thieves steal 5 tons of Nutella.” (5 tons of Nutella… really?) I have yet to determine which part of this story was most peculiar- was it the fact that The Telegraph, a British newspaper, did reportage of a major chocolate heist in Germany, or the fact that no one noticed a gang of thugs leaving with a mountain of pallets storing the wonder spread! Although the tweet (or the news for that matter) had nothing to do with US immigration, it did remind me of other tweets that I have previously categorized as “peculiar”. One of those tweets will be the topic of this blog, and is so far the most peculiar of them all, even more so than story about the chocolate-craving criminals:

On the 21st of March, 2013, a tweet pranced its way down the twitter runway. It originated from Cato Institute, with the headline: “Rand Paul’s Pro-Immigration push.” WHAT? Surely, this had to be a mistake!

First of all, let me briefly inform any reader not familiar with American politics who Rand Paul is: An ophthalmologist and a Republican senator representing the state of Kentucky. So, why would it be so strange for a republican senator to become pro-immigration, you may think. Well, nothing, really. In fact, it would be rather refreshing, much like a fresh breath of air.

But for Senator Rand Paul to present a speech before the U.S Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, portraying to be a statesman empathetic toward immigrants, whether documented or undocumented, peppering the content of his speech with phrases in Spanish in order to highlight his empathy certainly smells...and it smells like nothing else but a political game of charades. Instead of ranting about his speech, I challenge you to take 17 minutes out of your hectic life and listen to his speech. Here you go, please click the link:

Sounds like a Republican senator likely to become a presidential candidate? Well, before anyone becomes too smitten by his performance, I would like you to watch another slice of media, which shows Senator Rand Paul as a person with a very different view on immigration, more importantly his stance on the civil right of little babies to become American citizens, or in this case a lack thereof, I should add. Go ahead, click on the link and see for yourself:

I clearly recall when Rand Paul, then a senator candidate, was challenging the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, which lead to many public statements by Rand Paul in which he referred to children born to undocumented aliens on American soil as “anchor babies”. I recall the moments when the “anchor baby” slur (although not deemed a slur at that time) poured through the television on a daily basis- like a sharp sound to my ear triggering a certain sense of unease every single time. I was at the time pregnant with my fourth child and concurrently in the midst of a legal battle which had landed in no other place than  the Board of Immigration Appeals, and I was therefore, because of my uncertain legal status, by many stigmatized as an “illegal”. This meant that the child within my womb might easily be subjected to the kind of hatred that so many unjustifiably have toward immigrants. How would I ever be able to look at my children knowing that I may be the very reason that any of them could easily be subjected to such hatred... how would I react if they were referred to as “anchor baby” at any point of their lives. Even more unsettling is the fact that a political candidate would seed such hatred among citizens of a country which has fought so hard to lay behind the bigotry from a few decades ago, where mothers were as equally uneased every time a white man would used the slur "oreo baby"...

I can testify that my little son who was born in America is nothing in the sense of the definition of an “anchor baby”. He is living a life as any normal toddler with his immediate American family in the United States while I, the mother, who by the many whom hold so much hatred toward immigrants, be considered as the manipulative mastermind of creating a baby only to use such baby as an anchor in order to stay in America, is currently thousands of miles away.

I am confident to clearly state, that my own child as well as the many children born to other parents in the United States whom are considered by others as “illegals”:  The thought that our children exists only for our own selfish reasons of being able to remain in the USA is non-existent; the ONLY thing which is anchored in the moment of the conception of such a child, are the two human beings, whereas either one or both are non-American, is the passion and love between the two…

In the year of 2012, thanks to relentless work by Jennifer Chenoweth and Mary Giovagnoli, the American Heritage Dictionary classified the word “anchor baby” as offensive, and is now in the same the same category of other despicable slurs such as “oreo” and another inconceivable slur which is more familiar to European readers such as “tysker barn”- all disparaging words targeting innocent children. I can only hope that the efforts by the two women will have a direct effect of stopping anyone, especially those in the political arena from using the word in any context- and that includes the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Rand Paul.

In the year of 2012, thanks to relentless work by Jennifer Chenoweth and Mary Giovagnoli, the American Heritage Dictionary classified the word “anchor baby” as offensive, and is now in the same the same category of other despicable slurs such as “oreo” and another inconceivable slur which is more familiar to European readers such as “tysker barn”- all disparaging words targeting innocent children. I can only hope that the efforts by the two women will have a direct effect of stopping anyone, especially those in the political arena from using the word in any context- and that includes the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Rand Paul.

I hope that anyone will agree that it is quite peculiar that a political figure can be so divisive on a particular subject; how is it possible for the same person to consider himself pro-immigration by stating in one speech that there is room for anyone who wants to live and work in the USA, yet wanting to deny their children the dignity of becoming American citizens if the parents at the time of their child’s birth have an unsatisfactory immigration status? I think the senator owes everyone within the American borders, as well as to us watching from afar, a logical explanation with regard to the polarized view he has presented us with throughout his political career. It would be the ethical thing to do...something in which, one would think, a person such as Rand Paul could comprehend, more so than most, considering that he has been privileged to work in the medical sector, a world where ethics is the primary force of which one work/live by.

Until an official clarification on his view regarding the denial of citizenship to innocent children has been presented to all of us I will remain skeptical that the senator is truly pro-immigration.

The last thing America needs is another political figure wearing two faces...

Kindest regards,

TheGreatDane