Gary Johnson: Of course the term “anchor baby” is offensive!


OAI email blast:

Friends,

If you’re like me, you have watched an amazing argument take place among the presidential candidates over the momentous question of whether the term “Anchor Babies” is offensive or not.

We even have one candidate trying to save face by suggesting that this term actually applies more to Asian immigrants than to Latino ones. It must be a joke, but sadly, I don’t think they are joking.

Of course, the term “Anchor Baby” is offensive. How could it not be? I live in New Mexico — and was Governor for eight years. Trust me. It’s offensive. Even more offensive is the absurdity of people named Bush, Trump and Clinton trying to decide what’s offensive to immigrants.

I have an idea. Let’s put the issue of birthright citizenship aside for a while and deal with real problems. For the record, in my opinion, if a young woman is enterprising enough to sneak across the border for the purpose of having a child who will then be eligible for citizenship in the U.S. — and who can, 21 years later when he or she has reached adulthood, perhaps sponsor family members for legal status, that might be a family who will make pretty good Americans.

At worst, it is not a “problem” that needs to be anywhere close to the top of our national “to do” list, much less the lead story on the news.

We have an $18 Trillion debt. We are dropping bombs on the other side of the globe with no apparent strategy behind doing so. Congress will be returning to work in a couple of weeks to, among other things, make critical decisions about our privacy and civil liberties.

THOSE are the issues the politicians should be focused upon — and the Our America Initiative is working hard to put REAL issues on the national agenda. If we don’t get government spending under control, illegal immigration won’t be a problem. No one will want to come to a nation whose economy has collapsed under the weight of unsustainable debt. Birthright citizenship in a nation that has destroyed liberty won’t be a very appealing opportunity.

Our America can’t put fiscal sanity, economic freedom or civil liberties on the front burner without your help. Go to Our America today and make an investment of $10, $25, $50, $100 or more in our work to solve REAL problems — not just the ones that make for good sound bites.

Our America is YOU, and I appreciate your support! Thank You!

Gov. Gary Johnson
Honorary Chairman

P.S. Fair, inclusive presidential debates in 2016 will go a long way toward putting the REAL issues on the agenda. Learn more about our fight for fair debates at FairDebates.com.

Gary Johnson

65 thoughts on “Gary Johnson: Of course the term “anchor baby” is offensive!

  1. trying again

    I see Johnson is continuing his near-perfect record of lying about the 14th Amendment. At least he’s moved on to a different clause to lie about.

  2. Robert Capozzi

    gj: At worst, it is not a “problem” that needs to be anywhere close to the top of our national “to do” list, much less the lead story on the news.

    me: Bingo! Well framed.

    Get this man a seat at the adult table.

  3. Dave Terry

    Clearly, Mr. Trying Again, is too stupid to know the difference between the 14th Amendment and whatever he “thinks” the 14th Amendment says.

    What PART of “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”;
    doesn’t Mr. Trying Again understand?

    Frankly, I wish it weren’t the case. As a member of the Original Homeland Security Agency, which has historically fought against invaders from the “OLD World” I’d gladly replace those invaders from Europe with descendants of those who came to this continent, with MY ancestors from Asia, some 30,000 to 8,000 years ago.

  4. Jill Pyeatt

    GJ said: “Even more offensive is the absurdity of people named Bush, Trump and Clinton trying to decide what’s offensive to immigrants.”

    I don’t like this era where common decency has become unfashionable. I’m sick of the need to categorize and revile everyone who’s different than whatever is the norm of the day. I’m glad Gary has spoken out about this.

  5. Andy Craig

    He isn’t correct about Congress defining away birthright citizenship by statute. But otherwise I pretty much agree.

    One thing that I think is wrong is the idea that the main “benefit” of citizenship is access to the welfare state. It primarily grants a list of protections against the government, starting with the right to reside in the country without facing deportation. It also isn’t really true that on net, current immigrants (illegal and/or legal) are net drains on the public fisc. Even with the existing welfare state, that isn’t the case. Immigrant populations skew very heavily towards young working-age men, either without children or whose children have not joined them in the US. The very demographic group most likely to be contributing into the welfare state and least likely to be taking advantage of it, even broadly defined.

  6. William Saturn

    Gary Johnson is claiming that certain words are offensive and so should not be used. This is a common tactic to quiet nonconformists before they even speak. It is very sad to see Gary Johnson playing the “political correctness” card through what should be termed the “language game.”

    The truth is that whether “anchor babies” is an offensive term or not does not matter. It is the term used to describe the incentive for non-citizens to enter a nation against its laws and give birth so that the birthed child may take advantage of the welfare state and provide a path to citizenship for its parent.

    Gary Johnson has a different view from Donald Trump on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. That’s fine. But why can’t he make his argument on its merits? Why play the “language game” in denigrating a term that is used?

    Perhaps it is unintentional, but I believe this game is played so that people with opposing views will conform by avoiding usage of “offensive terms” to avoid “offending” others. The opposing view is then eliminated from discourse artificially by people merely wanting to avoid offense rather than by rational argumentation. That is censorship through use of a logical flaw, the “language game.”

    Be weary of the “language game.” It is far more powerful than it seems.

  7. Andy

    “William Saturn

    August 26, 2015 at 1:14 am

    Gary Johnson is claiming that certain words are offensive and so should not be used. This is a common tactic to quiet nonconformists before they even speak. It is very sad to see Gary Johnson playing the ‘political correctness’ card through what should be termed the “language game.”

    The truth is that whether ‘anchor babies’ is an offensive term or not does not matter. It is the term used to describe the incentive for non-citizens to enter a nation against its laws and give birth so that the birthed child may take advantage of the welfare state and provide a path to citizenship for its parent.”

    I agree. These people are coming here so they can take advantage of American tax payers. They want to have their kids for “free” in hospitals where American tax payers pay the bill, and then their kids can be counted as American citizens, which entitles them to a bunch more “free” stuff.

  8. Robert Capozzi

    ws: Be weary of the “language game.” It is far more powerful than it seems.

    me: I’m thinking you meant “wary,” although “weary” works on another level!

    Yes, it might be that pols and others in the Public Square can and should use terms like jigaboos, wetbacks, kykes, wops, dykes, faggots, micks, gooks, etc.

    Would that make for more productive discourse? If so, how so?

    That said, the term “anchor baby” had never struck me as especially offensive, actually. It speaks to an intent of a mother with the specific desire to have her baby in the US so that he or she will be a US citizen, based on the prevailing interpretation of 14A. I have no idea how often this happens, but it probably does happen sometimes. Whether it’s a problem worthy of consideration at this moment in history, I suspect not so much, as GJ suggests. Issue number 245, perhaps?

  9. Robert Capozzi

    a: Once again, the real solution here is to establish one or more Libertarian Zones.

    me: Depends on what you mean by “real.” Andyland certainly has some theoretical appeal, but it’s a monumental, highly capital-intensive concept. Grandiose, I dare say. Similar utopian attempts have thus far failed miserably.

    Although even if you marshalled the capital to get Andyland established and functioning, I’m not sure how sustainable it would be in a globalized world brimming with ICBMs. Would the Andylandians capitulate to credible external threats?

    (I could deny being a government plant, but my guess is that would only reinforce your apparent lean that those who disagree with you are members of the Illuminati!)

  10. paulie

    That said, the term “anchor baby” had never struck me as especially offensive, actually.

    It’s very offensive, and also very ridiculous.

    It speaks to an intent of a mother with the specific desire to have her baby in the US so that he or she will be a US citizen,

    It’s more than that. It’s based on the horseshit and lies about how immigrants come to the US to mooch off of those already here, which is the opposite of the truth. A lot of people with this mentality, in addition to being completely ignorant and ass-backwards on the statistics on who on balance benefits more from welfare and other government programs and who on balance pays in and gets little or nothing out, also believe there is a fixed number of jobs that “belong” to those who look, sound and act a certain way, or were born here (but only if their parents were also), etc; and that other people are “stealing” these jobs away from them. It’s complete economic ignorance, but it’s very widespread and the concept of “anchor baby” comes with all this attached. The root of it is racism along with some pull-up-the-ladderism.

  11. paulie

    These people are coming here so they can take advantage of American tax payers. They want to have their kids for “free” in hospitals where American tax payers pay the bill, and then their kids can be counted as American citizens, which entitles them to a bunch more “free” stuff.

    That’s a prime example of the horseshit and BS being spread by people who perpetrate ignorant, racist and offensive false concepts such as “anchor babies.”

  12. paulie

    Gary Johnson is claiming that certain words are offensive and so should not be used.

    Yes, offensive, as well as ignorant, and just plain wrong factually as well as ethically. No one suggested you don’t have the right to say that stupid shit, only that it is wrong and, yes, offensive to a lot of people.

    This is a common tactic to quiet nonconformists before they even speak.

    There’s nothing more conformist than the nativist ignorance of which the idiotic concept of “anchor babies” is part and parcel.

    The truth is that whether “anchor babies” is an offensive term or not does not matter.

    Sure it does. It doesn’t offend you so it doesn’t matter to you.

    Let’s stop pretending it is only “politically” incorrect and start by acknowledging it is just plain incorrect period as well as wrong on every level and coming from a place of hate, stupidity and proud ignorance.

    Gary Johnson has a different view from Donald Trump on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

    Johnson is right and Trump is wrong, as usual.

    But why can’t he make his argument on its merits?

    He did.

    Why play the “language game” in denigrating a term that is used?

    Because it’s a completely ridiculous term that betrays a racist, bigoted nativist mindset.

  13. paulie

    One thing that I think is wrong is the idea that the main “benefit” of citizenship is access to the welfare state. It primarily grants a list of protections against the government, starting with the right to reside in the country without facing deportation. It also isn’t really true that on net, current immigrants (illegal and/or illegal) are net drains on the public fisc. Even with the existing welfare state, that isn’t the case. Immigrant populations skew very heavily towards young working-age men, either without children or whose children have not joined them in the US. The very demographic group most likely to be contributing into the welfare state and least likely to be taking advantage of it, even broadly defined.

    Exactly.

  14. paulie

    I see Johnson is continuing his near-perfect record of lying about the 14th Amendment. At least he’s moved on to a different clause to lie about.

    Johnson is right about both clauses.

  15. Robert Capozzi

    pf: It’s very offensive, and also very ridiculous….
    It’s more than that. It’s based on the horseshit and lies about how immigrants come to the US to mooch off of those already here, which is the opposite of the truth.

    me: It depends. Are you telling us that NO WOMAN has EVER come to the US to give birth so her child can enjoy the (non-mooching) benefits of being a US citizen?

    And if the newborn is considered a US citizen, have there NEVER been instances where immigrant parents of US-citizen children have been allowed to stay because their child is a US citizen?

    Have immigrants ever referred to their US-born citizen-children as “anchors”?

    Some may well conflate the mooch factor as well, I’m sure.

    Truth seekers seek truth wherever it may lead them.

    Polemicists don’t.

    Which are you?

  16. Mark M. Herd for U.S. Senate 2016 (CA)

    Calling all Libertarian Presidential Candidates. There will be a forum for you to participate in and hopefully get your message out. It’s called the California Libertarian Senate and Presidential Candidate Forum. Please attend and tell others. The forum will take place on Sept 16th, at 7p.m. CA time. (same night as the Republican debate) at fb pg. http://www.facebook.com/groups/libertarianswin Please post your questions for the candidates as comments at another pg. https://www.facebook.com/groups/LPCASenatePresidentialForum/
    On Wed. Sept. 16th, same night as the Republican debate, LPCA Chairman Ted Brown will pick questions from your submissions for ALL our candidates. All candidates will get to answer in the comment section of each question and will have 5 minutes to respond. However, editing by the candidates is allowed the night of the debate. So if you want their FINAL ANSWER, you may want to check back on day 2. Thank you in advance for your questions and ANYBODY can ask a question. My campaign site and contact info is at http://www.voteherd2016.com It would be greatly appreciated if IPR could post this as an article. Thank you in advance for your time.

    Mark M. Herd

  17. William Saturn

    “how do you figure that?”

    Death is sad. Are you in favor of people being shot and killed in this manner?

    “Was she 9 years old?”

    You can research that yourself and report back to us.

  18. Robert Capozzi

    WS, no, I don’t favor people being shot. You asserted the news reporter is “[t]he latest victim of political correctness,” with no justification. Why do you conclude she — in her 20s, btw, not a “girl” — that she was victim of a concept (PC)?

    Guns don’t kill people, nor do ideas! But you haven’t connected nearly enough dots to make the claim that political correctness was in ANY way involved in this tragedy.

    Sorry, I’d thought my question would be obvious….hope I’ve cleared it up for you.

  19. Andy Craig Post author

    So William Saturn is complaining that Gary Johnson shouldn’t say something using certain words because the use of those words is contrary to WS’s political beliefs.

    If only there was a term for that….

  20. William Saturn

    That’s not what I’m saying at all Andy Craig. He can use whatever terms he wants, but when he starts making these “offensiveness” statements, which are logical fallacies, then he should be called out on it.

  21. Andy Craig Post author

    There’s no logical fallacy in condemning rude insults as such. You might be offended by the use of the word “offensive,” but there’s nothing fallacious about it. Whining about how decency and manners are just “political correctness” is no excuse for being an asshole, even if it’s a very popular attempted excuse.

    There is, however, a pretty big logical fallacy in calling Alison Parker (she has a name) a “victim of political correctness.”

  22. NewFederalist

    Perhaps I read the wrong news report of the murder/suicide but I didn’t see anything about her or the cameraman having made “racist” remarks. Could someone explain that to me?

  23. Robert Capozzi

    NF, WS seems unwilling to ‘splain himself, throwing linguistic dust in the air to avoid his obvious (and odd) error.

    I’ve detected a weird PC victimization trend in recent years, blaming every social ill on political correctness. I don’t grok it. Since when are manners and consideration vices?

    I think the shooter was African American and his victims were white. How that translates into a matter of PC-ism run amok requires many synapses to be jumped, near as I can see.

  24. Andy Craig Post author

    The shooter was an ex-employee who had sued the station for racial discrimination, and alleged on social media after the shooting (before his own suicide) that Parker had made “racist comments”

    That’s all we really have from the initial reports, which of course should be taken with a large grain of salt until confirmation and more details emerge. Even if that is the gist of the story, that doesn’t make her a “victim of PC” of course, it makes her the victim of a deranged gunman and angry former coworker. It takes a special kind of leap to look at that, and take away the lesson that we shouldn’t condemn racism because that’s encouraging people to shoot alleged racists.

  25. Robert Capozzi

    AC, thank you. And yes of course you are correct that that factset =/= “victim of PC.”

    We’ll see if WS can muster SOME sort of explanation! I am interested in hearing one that is coherent, as I love to be shown another way of looking at things, so long as it makes at least some sense. But I won’t be holding my breath!

  26. William Saturn

    The murderer targeted the victim because she allegedly made “racist comments.” Those are his own words. In other words, he was offended by something she said that he felt was “politically incorrect” and so he killed her as a result of being offended.

    It is correct that political correctness is an idea and that perhaps it was somewhat hyperbolic for me to suggest she was “a victim” of it. But from what the murderer said, it is easy to presume that “political correctness” was the motivation. Just as racism can be a motivation for murder, political correctness is gaining ground as a common motivation. Political correctness should be rooted out for the logical fallacy it is. And yes, it is a logical fallacy. As I already explained above:

    “so that people with opposing views will conform by avoiding usage of “offensive terms” to avoid “offending” others. The opposing view is then eliminated from discourse artificially by people merely wanting to avoid offense rather than by rational argumentation. That is censorship through use of a logical flaw”

    Again, I implore you to watch Andy’s video as well for an intellectual discussion of the matter.

  27. Robert Capozzi

    Racist =/= politically incorrect. It’s much worse. It’s true that it’s politically incorrect to both BE racist and to SPEAK in a racist manner, but PC matters deal mostly with much less obviously hateful subjects.

    Thanks for acknowledging that your first posts came across as hyperbolic.

    It’s certainly true that repressing one’s feelings is not healthy, and does not add to social progress. We can have a candid conversation about, say, immigration and remain in bounds of what I’d call politically correct.

    If a person is a racist or an anti-immigrant, I would suggest he or she keep it to themselves, though, except perhaps with a psychologist, as it’s insane to hate, especially because of skin color or national origin.

  28. Robert Capozzi

    ws: Just as racism can be a motivation for murder, political correctness is gaining ground as a common motivation.

    me: A “common” motivation FOR MURDER? Really?

    Evidence, please. And, please, not just a few random anecdotes. Please offer justification that there has been a significant rise in counter-PC-motivated murders.

  29. Jed Ziggler

    I do admire William Saturn’s commitment to preserving free speech, but you take it too far when you seem to imply that anyone who calls out speech that they find offensive as somehow a threat to free speech. I’m all for defending offensive speech from censorship, but I also believe decent people should also condemn said offensive speech. The two in no way oppose each other.

  30. William Saturn

    In this particular instance, I said “[p]erhaps it is unintentional.” Regardless of his intentions, Johnson is making an argument from the stance of political correctness.

    When one denounces others for using the term “anchor baby,” he creates an artificial disincentive for people to discuss the issue publicly. That the very utterance of “anchor baby” should be denounced outright is the same proposition that having the belief that an incentive exists for people to pass over the U.S. border against U.S. laws and give birth to a child is to be denounced outright as well. If this issue cannot be discussed freely with the recognition that the term denotes something real and not merely something offensive, then the public discourse lacks rational thought.

  31. paulie

    When one denounces others for using the term “anchor baby,” he creates an artificial disincentive for people to discuss the issue publicly.

    Bullshit. There are tons of people still openly, publicly and without any irony using this ridiculous term.

    That the very utterance of “anchor baby” should be denounced outright is the same proposition that having the belief that an incentive exists for people to pass over the U.S. border against U.S. laws and give birth to a child is to be denounced outright as well.

    Aside from the fact that the incidence of this alleged behaior is generally massively exaggerated, the term is also ugly and nasty in and of itself.

    If this issue cannot be discussed freely with the recognition that the term denotes something real and not merely something offensive, then the public discourse lacks rational thought.

    It doesn’t denote any real phenomenon that is in any way common.

  32. William Saturn

    “There are tons of people still openly, publicly and without any irony using this ridiculous term.”

    And? It only started being denounced recently.

    “the term is also ugly and nasty in and of itself.”

    How?

    “It doesn’t denote any real phenomenon that is in any way common.”

    Do you have any evidence to prove that assertion? I believe people would willing to act in their own self interest.

  33. paulie

    I do admire William Saturn’s commitment to preserving free speech, but you take it too far when you seem to imply that anyone who calls out speech that they find offensive as somehow a threat to free speech. I’m all for defending offensive speech from censorship, but I also believe decent people should also condemn said offensive speech. The two in no way oppose each other.

    William Saturn adheres to a very stringent form of political correctness. From his standpoint it is politically incorrect to have any emotion in opposing bigotry, or to point out the ugliness of blatant slurs and the massively distorted thinking behind them.

  34. Andy

    People on the left generally get criticized for “political correctness,” but there is right wing “political correctness” as well.

    Some examples of right wing “political correctness” are blind support for the military, blind support for the police, reverence for certain religions, reverence for the American flag, etc…

    I personally don’t care much for any “political correctness,” be it from the left or the right.

  35. William Saturn

    “From his standpoint it is politically incorrect to have any emotion in opposing bigotry, or to point out the ugliness of blatant slurs and the massively distorted thinking behind them.”

    I never said this. I believe in free expression. Certain attitudes are causing a chilling of free expression, however. I do not wish to censor such attitudes. I wish only to point out their negative effects on free expression.

  36. paulie

    How?

    The mental imagery is of invasion. It’s ridiculous and wrong.

    Do you have any evidence to prove that assertion? I believe people would willing to act in their own self interest.

    Not much self-interest there. The parents don’t get to stay just because the child is born here. If anything, US born children either have to leave with their parents or grow up without them.

  37. paulie

    I never said this. I believe in free expression. Certain attitudes are causing a chilling of free expression, however. I do not wish to censor such attitudes only to point out their negative effects on free expression.

    So by your own standard, you are trying to chill (albeit not censor) the free speech of those who point out being offended by bigotry (even if they don’t seek to censor it) through your expression of dispproval of such speech.

  38. paulie

    Some examples of right wing “political correctness” are blind support for the military, blind support for the police, reverence for certain religions, reverence for the American flag, etc…

    Also, insanely exaggerated hysteria about TEH MEXICUNZ, TEH GAYZ, TEH MOOZLIMS etc.

  39. Andy

    “paulie

    August 27, 2015 at 12:26 am

    ‘Some examples of right wing ‘political correctness’ are blind support for the military, blind support for the police, reverence for certain religions, reverence for the American flag, etc…’

    Also, insanely exaggerated hysteria about TEH MEXICUNZ, TEH GAYZ, TEH MOOZLIMS etc.”

    I don’t know if these are things that would really fall under the category of “political correctness.” Perhaps they would better fall under the category of things to rally against.

    Another example of “political correctness” from right wing Republicans is that they hold Ronald Reagan in high regard, so they consider it to be in bad taste to say anything bad about Ronald Reagan (which to me would just be speaking the truth about him).

  40. William Saturn

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby#Incidence

    “you are trying to chill (albeit not censor) the free speech of those who point out being offended by bigotry (even if they don’t seek to censor it) through your expression of dispproval of such speech”

    No. I have a much narrower view of what constitutes bigotry than those claiming to be offended by everything. The term is being overused and crowding out actual bigotry. This is worth pointing out.

    Merriam-Webster defines “bigot” as “one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

    Does “hatred and intolerance” fuel the people who believe that others who cross the border of the U.S. against the laws of the U.S. and shortly thereafter have a child in the U.S. should not immediately become a citizen of the U.S.? Personally, I don’t think so. I believe they are fueled by good faith beliefs in U.S. sovereignty, respect for the rule of law, and protection of public funds.

  41. paulie

    Does “hatred and intolerance” fuel the people who believe that others who cross the border of the U.S. against the laws of the U.S. and shortly thereafter have a child in the U.S. should not immediately become a citizen of the U.S.?

    Absolutely!

  42. paulie

    Are you telling us that NO WOMAN has EVER come to the US to give birth so her child can enjoy the (non-mooching) benefits of being a US citizen?

    And if the newborn is considered a US citizen, have there NEVER been instances where immigrant parents of US-citizen children have been allowed to stay because their child is a US citizen?

    Dunno. Maybe there have been some individual Jews that have sucked human blood, somewhere at some point – cult members, lunatics, or what have you. It was never a widespread phenomenon that could justify a slur such as “blood sucking Jews.” The idea of “anchor babies” is about on the same level. The reality is that there is no such widespread phenomenon and in fact no legal or widespread exemption from deportation due to having US born children.

    Have immigrants ever referred to their US-born citizen-children as “anchors”?

    As far as I know, no. I’ve certainly never heard it from anyone except xenophobes.

    Some may well conflate the mooch factor as well, I’m sure.

    The “mooch factor” is not what people think it is. If anything, on balance, it’s the rest of us that are mooching off undocuented workers.

  43. paulie

    The latest victim of political correctness is the newsgirl who was shot today because she made “racist comments.” This is very sad.

    Much the same as people killed by the unabomber were victims of environmentalism, or that people killed by Eric Rudolph were victims of Christianity, etc. The criminally insane use all kinds of excuses to kill; blaming the subjects being turned into those excuses is absurd.

  44. William Saturn

    You are accusing those opposing birthright citizenship of being bigots. For this, the intention of the immigrant does not matter. You have to analyze the thoughts of those opposing birthright citizenship. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, do you reject that most opposing birthright citizenship do so out of good faith beliefs in U.S. sovereignty, respect for the rule of law, and protection of public funds?.

  45. paulie

    Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, do you reject that most opposing birthright citizenship do so out of good faith beliefs in U.S. sovereignty, respect for the rule of law, and protection of public funds?.

    I think they have a mix of motivations, and that bigotry often lurks beneath the surface when it’s not readily apparent and shown with pride.

    A lot of it is based on widespread misconceptions, also.

    http://mic.com/articles/43599/8-of-the-most-vicious-myths-about-illegal-immigrants

  46. paulie

    Reading the links above makes it more than readily apparent why the term “anchor baby” is both offensive and ridiculous in every way possible.

  47. Robert Capozzi

    pf, Chapman makes some good points.

    I wonder, though, would you say that having ANY standards for citizenship create a “permanent underclass”?

    Could anyone cross the border and immediately be granted US citizenship? Say a 65 year old Pakistani dudette flies into JFK, gets off the plane, should she be declared a US citizen and immediately receive Social Security?

    If not, why not?

  48. Robert Capozzi

    pf, so I think I’m going to take a position on this issue now.

    The interpretation that the 14A grants immediate “birthright citizenship” is not ideal. I’m convinced it was not the intention when 14A was adopted. However, I see no evidence that birthright citizenship in all instances is a major problem at this time; it’s a minor one, at worst. Regardless, optimizing birthright citizenship would probably require amending the Constitution, or at minimum require thoughtful enabling legislation that I have no faith that the current Congress could competently craft.

    Therefore, I take no position at this time on the matter, other than to say that I find the matter a distraction. Let’s address first things first.

    P, does this position make me a hater/bigot in your eyes?

  49. Pingback: Is the LP About to Nominate a Gun-Grabbing Big Government Neocon? | Saturn's Repository

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *