Brat Hume probably said it best when he noted his position vis-a-vis  profiling: "Some people are going to have to endure inconvenience as opposed to everybody."

It is redundant but let us take a look at similar views concerning immigration from those on the Great White Right:

Michelle Bachmann :. Look at Israel and Palestine. Fences work  http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/07/bachmann-on-immigration-we%E2%80%99re-losing-our-country/

Beck uses bag of "pot" and bottle of prescription pills to illustrate the "difference between legal and illegal immigration." http://mediamatters.org/research/201004280038

Crowder: "You're not looking for a blond-haired, blue-eyed Swede most of the time."

Gutfeld: Racial profiling a no-brainer.  A lot of the critics are saying this is racial profiling. Duh! They're coming from another country. That's what you do. You have to look at them and see who they are before you know they're legal or illegal. I don't think that's a fair criticism."

Gallagher: it's racial profiling, to be sure, cops know if there's a van full of dark-skinned men with lawnmowers packed into the back of a pick-up truck...that's what they're talking about."

http://mediamatters.org/research/201004280038

Limbaugh feels that Our President has more enemies in Arizona than in Iran.

Beck says that we will end up being Mexico.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004290014

These statements may seem STUPID and nonsensical. They may be throw-aways as far as many in this country contend. But the humor is being losted along the way.

TPM just picked up this ditty that I read last night:

While many Democrats and Republicans alike have criticized Arizona's anti-immigration law for going too far, on Monday, Iowa Republican congressional candidate Pat Bertroche had an even more draconian idea -- implant microchips in undocumented immigrants to keep track of them:

"I think we should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going," said Pat Bertroche, an Urbandale physician. "I actually support micro-chipping them. I can micro-chip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I micro-chip an illegal?

"That's not a popular thing to say, but it's a lot cheaper than building a fence they can tunnel under," Bertroche said.

A Republican congressional candidate said Tuesday that comments he made suggesting illegal immigrants be microchipped so they could be more easily tracked were taken out of context..

Context is just everything, is it not? What in the hell is he talking about? He seems to be saying in some of the retractions I have read that he meant that 'illegals' could get human microchips instead of dog microchips.

But there is meat in here. There are real issues with what Bertroche is saying. This man is not just some lone bigot in the repub party. THIS MAN AND THE REPUBS ARE PEOPLE TO FEAR. And if you do not believe me read this:

The Los Angeles Times reports that, at a tea party rally in the San Diego County city of Ramona , Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) stated that U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants should get deported along with their parents to save the state of California money:

QUESTION: Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens?

HUNTER: I would have to, yes. [...] We simply cannot afford what we're doing right now. California is going under. How much in debt are we? Twenty billion dollars? [...] And we're not being mean, we're just saying it takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It's what's in our souls...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/28/duncan-hunter-immigration/

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There are so many 'basic' rubrics in the law that even the term basic rubric has become utter bullshit as far as regular people attempting to interpret the "laws" of this country. But one basic rubric is called:

THE PLAIN LANGUAGE DOCTRINE

The blessed foundation of our rights today spring from the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Unless you live in DC or one of our territories, the Bill of Rights have no application to you as individuals without this magical Amendment. As far as I am concerned, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution arose from a Constitutional Convention of sorts called the Civil War wherein we  became a new nation.

Now there is an 1882 Supreme Court Decision that really takes this plain language doctrine to heart. Congress has passed another of its racist no good laws completely based upon the bigotry of Americans far and wide at the time. We had brought in all these Chinese to help build our railroads and now the 19th century teabaggers wished to get rid of them all. Although this anti-Chinese legislation was not all encompassing, its intent was to fuel the fires of the No Nothings and take away the rights of Chinese Americans.

The case was entitled United States v. Wong Kim Ark and it stated in its relevant parts:

Issue

The Supreme Court, in the Wong Kim Ark case, was called upon to decide whether an American-born person of Chinese ancestry could constitutionally be denied U.S. citizenship and excluded from the country.

 Opinion

Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[4]) - and that since none of these conditions applied to Wong's situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact that "...during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China".

Since Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, the majority held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

And the right wing knows this.  Oh do not be fooled. There will be attempts to attack our Constitutional Safeguards no matter how embedded into our culture they may seem to be. I could see a Scalia noting that most of the opinion was obiter dicta; that is merely words that had no applicability to the real issues before the Ark Court. Or that the Arizona Law may be narrowly distinguished from the Ark case.

But that really begs the issue. HOW DO YOU DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN IS? And birth is a big part of it no matter how you twist the words of this sacred Amendment.

BACK TO THE MICROCHIPS

The yellow badge (or yellow patch), also referred to as a Jewish badge, was a cloth patch that Jews were ordered to sew on their outer garments in order to mark them as Jews in public. It is intended to be a badge of shame associated with antisemitism.[1] In both Christian and Islamic countries, persons not of the dominant religion were intermittently compelled by sumptuary laws to wear badges, hats, bells or other items of clothing that distinguished them from members of the dominant religious group.

The yellow badge that was compulsory in the Middle Ages was revived by the German Nazis.  (WIKI)

For a thousand years, in Christian countries and even in Muslim countries; laws were passed making the Jews wear badges on the outside of their clothing designating them as second class citizens.

Microchips might be less perceivable on the streets of our fair cities, but they represent something right off the Sy Fy Channel.

The real message here, again, is that millions and more probably tens of millions of people in this country see an embedded twelve million people as dogs, less than human. And we have teabaggers right up front about their racism. They wish to change the one Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that links us all.

Oh and I discovered this gem concerning our teabagging fascist no-nothings:

The truth is that the opponents of our principles are the ones who refuse to engage in civil discourse about our pressing public policy problems. They know that their anti-freedom agenda is being rejected by the general public, so they won't show up to public events like LiveFreePA and explain why they want to take away your rights and monitor your behavior, and then tell you and your family how to live your lives. Not only that, now they're talking to the newspapers proclaiming how you should spend your Saturday on May 8th.

You know what? If I were a nanny-stater, I wouldn't show up either. And I sure wouldn't want you to come, have a good time, and show these politicians what gun safety and a sense of humor look like, and be encouraged to keep fighting for freedom. That's why I hope you'll join us May 8th to pump a few rounds (or fire a cannon...) into a beat-up car bearing anti-freedom policy ideas like "ObamaCare," "Card Check," "Cap and Trade," and other failed, wealth-redistributionist ideas.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/28/gop-shooting-hcr/