Judge Napolitano on Ending Birthright Citizenship: “Nothing but political chatter”

Via Think Progress, here’s Fox News legal analyst and host Judge Andrew Napolitano sounding off on Republican efforts to outlaw birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants:

BILL HEMMER: But if the [Birthright Citizenship Act] were carried out, you had 100 co-sponsors about a year ago, it would require at least one parent to be a US citizen for a baby to become an American citizen at birth. If you were to enact the BCA as some refer to it, is that a way to get around the 14th Amendment, and get done what people like John Cornyn, and John Kyl and John Mccain, and we heard from John Boehner, are trying to do.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: No! That would not be a a way around it. There is no way to get around the 14th Amendment. These people took an oath to uphold the Constitution whether they agree with it or not! All of it not and part of it!

Watch it here:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Look at me||

    1st

  • Look at me||

    1st

  • Looking at you||

    Idiot, it's 2nd.

  • MNG||

    I like that judge, but I'm not sure taking an oath to defend the constitution means you can't propose changing it...

  • MNG||

    Or pass legislation that you honestly think would be permitted by it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Amending the constitution IS constitutional. That is what he means. As for legislature that TRIES to circumvent the 14th Amendment, the judge says you cannot do that. The 18th Amendment was repealed by ANOTHER amendment, not by simple legislation, because that IS what the Constitutional process (procedure) requires.

  • Suki||

    You are responding to an impostor or a chemically altered version of Miss Nice Gay.

  • MNG||

    But here's a scenario:
    You take an oath to defend the constitution. There is a measure that you think would be good for the nation, but you don't think it would comport with a correct interpretation of the constitution, but you do think it has a good chance of being found constitutional by the current SCOTUS, which, according to the Constitution, seems to have the last word on what is constitutional...Would you be breaking your oath to vote for the legislation in question?

  • Nipplemancer||

    yes. if it violates the constitution even in good faith, you're still breaking that oath.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Would you be breaking your oath to vote for the legislation in question?

    Yes, you would be, since the Constitution requires NO interpretation - it is written in PLAIN ENGLISH, not Latin. Even I who grew up speaking Spanish as my mother tongue understands the limitations the Constitution imposes.

    This "interpretation" excuse is nothing more than attempts to weasely side-step the clauses and limitations of the Constitution.

    Be wary of ANYONE that tells you the Constitution is defined by interpretation, because in the very same way someone may propose legislation that YOU like based on that canard, they can perfectly STRIP YOU of your RIGHTS as a human being under the SAME canard.

    Give enough power to someone, they will take more, MNG. This is what many here have been trying to tell you: You cannot be wishy-washy with people in power, because you do not know when they will turn on YOU. Even if the person is someone like Obama, or even Ralph Nader (one of the few left-libertarians I happen to respect.)

  • Tony||

    Then why have a judicial branch at all? What does "cruel and unusual" mean, precisely? Hmm?

  • TeamBlueMoron||

    One extra way to shoot stuff down.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    To tell the other two branches when they are breaking the Constitution, whether or not they did it in good faith.

  • Suki||

    Judicial branch is ruled by legislative branch. All you have to do is something you are not capable of. Reading.

  • ||

    Absolutely. If you feel it should be changed, there is an amendment process. We have 27 of them so far.

    If the GOP wanted to pass the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, requiring that at least one parent be a citizen in order for the child to be a citizen, I may or may not agree with it, but it'd at least be a correct way to do it. Passing a law that violates the constitution is not.

  • ||

    This whole "anchor baby" thing is such red-meat bullshit bait for the anti-immigration crowd. Hey, wasn't every one of your fucking ancestors an "anchor baby" at some point? Morons.

  • IceTrey||

    No. My ancestors were LEGAL immigrants.

  • ||

    Ah, the LEGAL argument. It has nothing to do with them being Mexican, right?

  • Marcello||

    That's right, it has nothing to do with being Mexican.

  • MWG||

    Probably because their were no immigration laws that would have made them ILLEGAL.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    The Neanderthals differ.

  • d||

    Hey, wasn't every one of your fucking ancestors an "anchor baby" at some point? Morons.

    No, not necessarily. The term "anchor baby" refers to women (and men, potentially) who would otherwise be deported, if not for their citizen children.

    My ancestors at least either came here before there were any meaningful immigration restrictions or came here as the spouse of someone who was already a citizen.

    But point taken: it does get used (abused) by xenophobes who just don't like immigrants.

  • d||

    Correction: "anchor baby" refers to the babies of said men and women.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: d,

    No, not necessarily. The term "anchor baby" refers to women (and men, potentially) who would otherwise be deported, if not for their citizen children.

    They ARE deported. It is not IF, they ARE being deported.

    This is pure bullshit. What REALLY happens is this: Young women cross the border, give birth to baby in El Paso TX or San Diego, CA, receive birth certificate, and 18 years later, voila! The American-born citizen requests his or her mother and father to be brought in the US with a green card.

    THis has NOTHING to do with deportation. NOTHING. It has to do with Being Mexican, that's all.

    And I say this as a white, green-eyed Mexican. Yes, we are not all stocky short guys with prickly hair.

  • ||

    Thank you, OM. I was getting tired of repeating the reply to people who say things like "women (and men, potentially) who would otherwise be deported, if not for their citizen children."

    Oh WTF, I will repeat it. THE PARENTS OF "NCHOR BABIES" DO GET DEPORTED.

    Ah, yes, illegal immigration, a crime desperately searching for a victim.

  • ||

    Dammit, i shouldn't post when I'm angry.

    The "A" from "ANCHOR BABIES" got so upset it ran off in fright.

  • ||

    Well, to be fair, probably not. Most of their ancestors were legal immigrants. At least mine were. Back from the days when legal immigration existed...

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Episiarch,

    It is pure unadulterated bullshit, I agree with you. One would have to have one HELL of a time preference tolerance to invest in such idea, since USA-born babies CANNOT ask for his or her parents to receive a green card until they are 18 years old.

    That's EIGHTEEN LONG YEARS, and the green card process may take another YEAR for parents. Forget about bringing brothers or sisters - the process for Mexicans alone takes about 18 years from the start of the process to the end. They really like us here, you know . . . And I say that as a white, green-eyed Mexican.

  • new parent||

    by definition, every baby is an anchor.

  • Warty||

    They make good bait, too.

  • ||

    "No kids? Well, get yourself some kids. Take it all. [hands officer more cash] And just remember, the best thing about kids...is making them."

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    The term "anchor baby" is really despicable, as is the effort to end birthright citizenship (and to suppress immigration in general).

    Immigrants' children are mere legal ploys to suck on the welfare system? Really? You really think Latin Americans are that inhuman that they don't have children for the same reasons 'mericans do? Sure, they call corn "maize", but do you really think they don't have a word for "love"? Go fuck yourself.

    Didn't we celebrate the (apocryphal?) pregnant women climbing through barbed wire, dodging East German border police, to give birth to their babies in the free west? Or Elian Gonzales' mother, dying in the ocean while trying to bring her child here? Would Elian have been just another "anchor" baby if his mother had still been pregnant with him?

    To quote Janeane Garofalo, of all people, this anti-immigration shit is just straight up racism, and the fucktards wringing their hands about it will look as idiotic a generation from now as the idiots that were worried about German, Irish, and Italian immigrants generations ago.

  • Woodrow||

    You do know the lefties thought Elian's mother was wrong and an idiot for trying to bring her kid over here, right? There is hypocrisy on both sides.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    Hypocrisy and idiocy. Few liberals are in favor of free immigration, btw.

  • Geotpf||

    That's absolutely not true, for either definition of the word liberal (the American definition (left-leaning) or the European one (libertarian)).

  • ||

    Really?

    Color me very skeptical.

    We're talking open borders here... not just legalizing a few more working class immigrants so they'll join union ranks, but actual open borders with cheaper labor at all skill levels undercutting the daylights out of union positions.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    Really? Name a couple of prominent or influential (US) liberal public intellectuals, or think-magazines that are in favor of free immigration and open borders.

  • ||

    But they're dirty foreigners; they don't have human emotions like us. They only want to TAKE UR JERBS!

  • Fozzie||

    According to the census, by 2024 Mexicans in America will outnumber humans.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Irresponsible Hater,

    To quote Janeane Garofalo, of all people, this anti-immigration shit is just straight up racism[.]

    It's not that simplistic. It is more a cultural thing - Americans have been accustomed to Merchantilist fallacies for so much time, they easily suscribe to the notion that "they come to take our jobs!" and other economic stupidity. The bias against German and Irish immigrants comes from the same fallacy, as Germans and the Irish and Swedes were more than willing to work for less income, undercutting established American workers. Obviously, these actions placed a downward pressure on wages, and the American worker has a very (VERY) shortsighted view on reality - the reality being that as labor intensive industries because more profitable, MORE industries would open to take advantage of the productivity of the American worker, leaving the less productive on the shops and factories. The American worker just saw the temporary displacement, without seeing the advantages of a higher wage on a less labor intensive job.

    This shortsightedness is what makes people lash out against immigrants; politicians just take advantage of that to gather more power for them.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    No doubt all true, but I wouldn't underestimate the degree of tribalism.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Oh, man. I was totally with you, seriously ... until you mentioned Garofolo.

  • Spoonman.||

    My wife was told just yesterday by HISD truancy officers that when a woman refused to pay a fine for her son not staying at school ("I drop him off, it's your problem if you can't keep him there") they put a warrant out for her arrest, and when she was pulled over for speeding she was deported - but her minor citizen children stayed in Houston. Heckuvajob, Icy.

  • ||

    And...

  • LarryA||

    No! That would not be a a way around it. There is no way to get around the 14th Amendment. These people took an oath to uphold the Constitution whether they agree with it or not! All of it not and part of it!

    Well, unless it’s for gun control, or to get rid of pornography, or for campaign reform, or to make life easier for SWAT teams, or…

  • ||

    No kidding. As Constitutional abuses go, this one barely twitches the needle.

    The sad thing is, I believe a restrictive "definition" of natural-born citizen has a pretty good chance of being upheld.

  • IceTrey||

    Sorry judge you're wrong on this one.

    "It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

    "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.""

    http://www.14thamendment.us/ar.....ality.html

  • Virginia||

    so Trumbull's intent fell victim to his own garbled bullshit legalese? classic.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: IceTrey,

    The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.""

    Bullshit. The clause was meant to exclude American Natives because they were a different NATION themselves (you don't need physical borders to have a nation.) The clause was also meant to make citizens of any person born in the American TERRITORIES, which were NOT States, but (guess what???) SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the USGov.

    So you're STUCK with it. There's no interpretation of it - the Amendment SAYS what it SAYS, as clear as the 1st and the 2nd.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    I would prefer you to be correct, Old Mexican, but aren't you arguing with the author about what he meant? Or are you saying that despite what he meant, what he wrote conflicts with that?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Scotticus Finch,

    Or are you saying that despite what he meant, what he wrote conflicts with that?

    YEP.

    "Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

    I can say right now I don't OWE allegiance to anybody else, I am my own person. I just invalidated the restriction he mentioned but that is not included in the amendment.

    First, clearly, the clause was placed there to EXCLUDE native Americans from becoming citizens because making them citizens would then make the process of EXTERMINATING THEM quite sticky. That's all.

  • IceTrey||

    You've made my case. If Indians were excluded because they belonged to a recognized Indian Nation then children of non resident aliens can be excluded because their parents belong to other recognized nations.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I agree with OM. I could be convinced otherwise if you show me that the meaning of the words have changed somehow, but for now I agree with OM. It doesn't surprise me, as, the verbage in the 14 the ammendment just plain sucks. As you can see with your own eyes, I'm kind of a crappy writer, but I could have written it better. The whole 13th, 14th, and 15th ammendment would have been better off like this:

    13th ammendment:
    Slavery is banned. All newly-ex slave owners will have three fifths of their property sold by lottery, and proceeds will be divided equally among former slaves.

    14th ammednment: no state or federal govmt may rely upon melalin levels for decision making purposes, nor implement a law which relies upon melanin levels for proper enforcement, nor require any private citizens to implement such decision making. Ditto for former servitude.

    15th ammendment: The following ammendments now apply to state governments as well as federal government: 1,2,4,5.

    Boom! No fucking penumbras or unumbras!

  • Zeb||

    Oh, well, if that guy I have never heard of says it's wrong, then it must be.

    If the US government can deport you, then I would say you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    That guy you've never heard of wrote the clause in the amendment. Since the whole debate is about the meaning of the language, I'd say that's worth considering.

  • Geotpf||

    Right. What this means is the children of ambassadors (or other embassy workers) from other countries who happen to be born in the US because their parents are stationed here do not become American citizens. That's all that clause means.

  • IceTrey||

    "Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

    "The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are FORIEGNERS, ALIENS, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

  • ||

    "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS ACCREDITED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, but will include every other class of persons."

    It's pretty clear that the subordinate clause here is qualifying "foreigners, aliens." If that isn't plain enough, the wildly inclusive "but will include every other class of persons" should be.

  • Tom||

    Unfortunately, MikeP missed english class the day they explained the function of commas.

  • ||

    Feel free to diagram that sentence any way you can to make the subordinate clause not modify "foreigners, aliens,". Please note the lack of an "or" in front of the clause as well.

  • Neu Mejican||

    http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/relativeclause.htm

    The commas in that sentence are around the are around the appositive "aliens" the relative clause starting with "who" is an essential clause clarifying the scope of "foreigners" which are also called "aliens." Hence the appositive.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Pleaze note the grammatical errors in the above post are the result of joe'z law.

    Competence/performance split clearly on display.

  • ||

    Exactly. And do note that this is a transcript of someone's speaking. It is entirely natural for him to parenthetically restate "foreigners" as "aliens".

    Were I to write it, I'd have used dashes around "aliens" to avoid the comma overload. Maybe they didn't use dashes in the 19th century or in the Congressional record.

  • bubba||

    Is it just me, or did Napolitano get zero recognition until he started saying things that conflicted with the GOP campaign rhetoric?

  • ||

    This seems silly. Wouldn't it be easier and not require a constitutional amendment to simply fix the part of immigration law that allows for chain immigration ?

    So you were born here and have citizenship. That doesn't need to apply to your parents, cousins, nieces and nephews.

    Seems to me the chin immigration provision is what is really being complained about.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Artifex,

    So you were born here and have citizenship. That doesn't need to apply to your parents, cousins, nieces and nephews.

    You cannot ask for a greencard for your nieces or nephews, only for immediate family.

    Also, you're being an asshole - the law would have to apply to ANYONE, which would mean you could not bring adopted sons or daughters who were born in another country.

    If you say "Well, let's place exceptions", you would have a great repeal case for the SCOTUS under the "equality under the law" concept.

  • kilroy||

    people like John Cornyn, and John Kyl and John Mccain, and we heard from John Boehner

    All these dipshits are named John. Coincidence?

  • Warty||

    I'd just like to say that it's absolutely absurd to think that the Constitution protects Mexicans. If they deserved rights, they would speak English, now wouldn't they?

    Cruza La Frontera

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Warty,

    If they deserved rights, they would speak English, now wouldn't they?

    Liked your sarcasm ;-)

  • ||

    I don't particularly care about the birthright citizenship issue and not at all about "anchor babies," but you can't deny that at times birthright citizenship seems preposterous. For example, one of the killed Turkish militants who tried to break the Gaza blockade at the end of May had an American citizenship. Why? Apparently, he was born in New Jersey where his father was a graduate student at the time. The boy (with his parents) left the US for Turkey before his first birthday to never come back. Anti-Israel pundits like Andrew Sullivan heavily used the fact that one of the militants killed by the IDF had an American citizenship to stir up sympathy for the "Peace flotilla" among the American public. But why should Americans care? It makes sense for Americans to care about other American citizens because they share some kind of a bond due to common experience, sacrifices, etc. But there was no such bond with that Turkish guy who happened to be born in New Jersey. It would make more sense for Americans -- even those who oppose illegal immigration -- to sympathize with Mexicans illegally crossing the US border to settle here; those folks have affirmatively displayed their desire to live in the US.

    Of course, the issue is irrelevant for those who profess to care equally about every person with no regard for his place of birth.

    If citizenship entails not only rights but also obligations then birthright citizenship may seem quite unfair. What if there was still draft in the US, would it be fair to draft that Turkish guy who never expressed any desire to be attached to the US? I bet he didn't pay US taxes from the income earned in Turkey or any other country as he was required to do.

    For these reasons I fail to get outraged when someone discusses abolishing birthright citizenship.

  • ||

    grrizzly

    No entirely on topic, but FYI.

    When we had a draft in this country the Selective Service System did not even try to draft US citizens residing in other countries.

    They did, however draft non-citizens, including illegal aliens. Allegiance had nothing to do with it, residence did.

  • ||

    I read in one the immigration threads the other day that some Americans or Canadians avoided visiting Switzerland because they were born there, were considered Swiss citizens and could be drafted until the age of 40 or so.

  • ||

    Absolutely, it was me who made that comment. One of the people was my mother's cousin (born in France to American parents - a reporter and a model) the other was a dual British-Swiss citizen I knew in Canada.

    I could have been drafted if I had come back to the states from Canada where I had been living with my parents since I was fifteen (ie before draft age).

    I deliberately registered for the draft when I turned eighteen, precisely to make sure I would't be arrested for not doing so if I came back.

    I was assigned to a draft board in D.C. that all foreign resident citizens were put in. When they classified me 1-A (immediately available for induction) I wrote and asked them about a student deferment. They told me that since no body with this board would get drafted* I wouldn't need a deferment until I enrolled in a US school and took up residence.

    Lots of guys didn't even bother to register. I did because I wanted to come home eventually. A lot of people say they envy me for having lived other places, but for the most part it sucked. It did keep me from getting a ticket to the Asian country we were blowing up at the time though.

    *they basically said they would not come to a foreign country to get me.

  • ||

    I have never heard that illegal aliens were drafted. What is your source?

  • ||

    No examples of anyone actually drafted, but they were most certainly subject to it.

    Are illegal alien males required to register?

    Yes. All immigrant alien males, other than those admitted on nonimmigrant visas, must register, whether or not they have a green card.

    Wikipedia's pretty interesting on the subject too.

  • Sam Grove||

    For these reasons I fail to get outraged when someone discusses abolishing birthright citizenship.

    But maybe you can work up a little passion about those who claim authority under the US Constitution, and who have sworn to defend it, act as though it can be ignored at will.

  • ||

    I didn't address any constitutional issues because it wasn't relevant to the point I tried to make. My point is that one can understand why most countries in the world require something more than the place of birth to grant citizenship.

  • ||

    Sam, get your tongue out of your throat. The proposition is to amend the constitution, which is entirely constitutional. I don't think anybody seriously believes there is any other way to change the "birthright citizenship" problem.

  • ||

    For example, one of the killed Turkish militants who tried to break the Gaza blockade at the end of May had an American citizenship.

    Interesting choice of words their buddy. I guess the Israeli commandos who boarded the floatilla and killed the the activists are rescue workers in your book?

  • ||

    People that want to obtain citizenship of a country for social security alone would go to Canada. The idea that someone would choose the U.S. for it's social security is a case of LMFAO. Just think of the health care.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    If there is one reason I'd want to move to Mexico, It'd be to start a purely private Hospital on the border. It'd be cheaper than anything in the US, and more profitable at the same time, once/if Obama care kicks all the way in.

  • ||

    I hear one of the backlash problems that the crackdown on illegals has caused is that now that it is so hard for Mexicans to cross the border at legal entry points they are no longer going back to Mexico for medical and dental care.

    Again this applies to both legal and illegal immigrants.

    Apparently you can buy a lot of medical and dental care in Mexico on American wages, and from what I hear it'll be better than anything you'll get on medicaid here.

    I have no problem admitting that in this case I am simply repeating stories with little substantiation here. i wish everyone else here who doesn't know what he's talking about would do the same.

  • AnonyMouse||

    Everyone here charging racism does so not because there is actually any racism to see but rather as a tactic to shut down debate.

    Also, Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality. Anyone of any color could be a citizen of Mexico.

    Leftards are... leftarded.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    Also, Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality.

    The Mexicans crossing the border illegally are almost entirely Indian or heavily-Indian mestizo. The white white upper class of Mexico isn't hanging out in front of Home Depot looking for work. So yes, racism is a factor in the illegal debates. It's (primarily) whites vs. Indians. Again.

    The bozos who claim it's not about race are the same bozos who claim that Birtherism isn't about Obama being black with an unusual name. IOW, bozos.

  • MWG||

    Those who cross the border also come from Guatemala, El Salvador, and other parts of Central America, but to the average conservative, 'they look Mexican, therefore...'

  • ||

    Yeah, true. A lot of European derived Americans came from Ireland, or England, or Spain, or Germany, etc, but to the average liberal, "they look racist, therefore..."

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Well unless you speak to them, they do. They are also mostly-Indian mestizo. Except some who have obvious Black lineage too; but still easy to tell apart from the Black Caribbeans who have absolutely no native American lineage.

  • Neu Mejican||

    AnonyMouse,

    Indeed. The more accurate term would be xenophobia.

  • ||

    Exactly. It's not about Mexico. There's dozens of nations full of sleepy-eyed brown people they don't want coming here.

  • ||

    There's a lot of bias on the language front too, though.

    French-Canadians in New England suffered a lot of the same kind of rejection as well.

  • ||

    Even heavily accented broken English is enough to raise the ire of a lot of nativists.

  • Zeb||

    A lot of people seem to think that they are somehow harmed if they have to hear someone speaking Spanish or talk to someone who speaks with an accent in the course of their day.

  • Tony||

    Oh and crossing a dangerous border and living under the radar to get paid peanuts at a miserable sweaty job ain't nothing compared to having to push an extra telephone button on customer service calls.

  • Stephanie||

    Glad to hear him say that. We shouldn't defend the Constitution and criticize those who ignore it, and then turn around and try to edit it according to our political agenda. Applause to him, for saying that.

  • Sam Grove||

    But we should criticize those who derive authority from the constitution when they try to ignore it.

  • Sam Grove||

    Dehumanize people by calling them "aliens". Dehumanize them further by calling them "illegal" aliens.

    Try "illegal human beings" and see how that tastes on the tongue of your soul.

  • ||

    And dehumanize others by calling them racists.

  • Zeb||

    And dehumanize still more people by accusing them of dehumanizing people by calling them racists.

  • ||

    Racists aren't really human, after all, so no loss to humanity. They are boogeymen used stop others from saying things with which the race-baiters disagree. Zeb, are you a journolister?

  • Neu Mejican||

    wayne

    It is true that the instincts at play here are far more akin to xenophobia than racism. Lots of people don't make the distinction as "racist" is used broadly to mean "bigoted" and xenophobia often leads to bigoted attitudes/actions/policy proposals.

    But I am not sure it is "race-baiting" to question the motivations behind those who spread the myth of anchor babies. It certainly seems like it would require a good deal of xenophobia for the myth to resonate in a way that the 14th amendment now seems like a danger to our country that needs addressing.

  • ||

    I can't speak for anybody but me, but I don't have a racist bone in my body. I object to immigration solely on economic grounds, I simply don't want to pay the costs associated with immigration. If the immigrant in question comes from Canada, or Finland, or Sweden and has absolutely stunning Arian features, I still don't want to pay their fare. The reality in America, though, is that the immigrants who are flooding in are from Mexico and Guatemala, etc.

    There is a tremendous effort put forth on H&R to silence the critics of illegal immigration by calling names. It is a typical left-wing, journolist style tactic, and is contemptible.

    As to your "myth of anchor babies" statement. It is not a myth, it is a reality. Somebody posted a statistic of 340,000 AB births per year. I don't know if that number is accurate, but it certainly seems within reason: if there are 12 million illegals in the country, and half are women then 340000 babies is only a fraction of the potential. Every one of those new citizens is eligible for full welfare support, etc. Given the Feds reluctance to deport anybody except felons, I am betting that a significant number of those babies are firmly attached to the taxpayer's tit.

  • Neu Mejican||

    wayne,

    The "anchor baby" myth is a myth to the extent that it implies that by having a baby in the US immigrants can "anchor" themselves in the US.

    As for the economic arguments, they don't seem reality-based since on balance immigrants are an economic positive. Certainly there is not additional cost for legal immigrants compared to citizens. As for illegal immigrant, from what I have read on the issue it seems the social welfare cost are negligible.

    I am not afraid of xenos, I just don't want to pay for them.

    So in your case, perhaps, xenochrematophobia is more accurate. Or would it be xenopeniaphobia?

    ;^)

  • Neu Mejican||

    wayne,

    I want to make it clear that when I say "xenophobia" I am referring specifically to the fear of anchor babies. Opposing immigration is a much broader topic and has many reasonable arguments at its core.

  • ||

    NM, You are confusing me with all of your $0.50 words :-).

    I would characterize myself as a xenopayolaphobic, or to put it in south-of-the-border lingo to satisfy the autophobes who insist on calling me a racist, a xenodenerophobic.

  • ||

    The "anchor baby" myth is a myth to the extent that it implies that by having a baby in the US immigrants can "anchor" themselves in the US.

    I agree with you on this, parenting a US citizen baby does not make one immune to deportation. However, it does allow one access to the US cookie-jar, which is regularly replenished courtesy of my (and your) taxes.

  • Neu Mejican||

    However, it does allow one access to the US cookie-jar, which is regularly replenished courtesy of my (and your) taxes.

    Well, they have access to that cookie jar whether or not the baby was born here. Kids get most services regardless of where they were born.

  • ||

    Oh, and one more thing, I also don't agree with the xenophobia label either. I am not afraid of xenos, I just don't want to pay for them.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Hm, for someone to be a racist, they first have to be human. I have never seen any racist dog or monkey.

  • Doc||

    Mexico should amend their constitution to only recognize children born in Mexico as their 'birthright citizens'.

    Quid pro quo, where do they go?

  • Psychic Octopus||

    I doubt the political climate in Mexico would be prone to that. Mexico cares only because of the remittances (If it cared about the people it would create livable conditions so they don't leave). If they severed the legal ties, the remittances well will dry up in the 18 years it takes for the law's effects to fully apply.

  • cheap watches||

    you can find whatever watch you want

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement