Anchor Babies: The New 'Republican Dog-Whistle'

[kathyet]

Anchor Babies: The New 'Republican Dog-Whistle'

By Michael Swartz

America is still a welcoming country for immigrants, but the sentiment for pulling up the welcome mat is gaining steam. Failure to secure our borders, lax enforcement of immigration laws by a federal government that therefore tacitly encourages border crossing and overstay of visas, the perception that illegal aliens are sponging off the welfare system, and immigrants' growing lack of assimilation has angered millions of Americans.

Enter Donald Trump, who has made immigration a key part of his platform. His latest vow is to get illegal immigrants “out of there day one ... out so fast your head will spin.” With his corresponding surge in the political polls, the national conversation on the topic has shifted focus to the phrase “anchor babies.” It's the term describing the effect of birthright citizenship, which itself is based on a faulty interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment when applied to children born to those here illegally.

The number of those who have come to the United States to give birth is increasing. While the Pew Hispanic Center says four out of five children of illegal aliens were born in this country, it's now estimated that one out of 10 American births overall would fall under the description "anchor babies." Most are the offspring of illegal immigrants who understand current deportation policy gives them a “get out of jail free” card once the child is born — along with a claim to our generous public treasury. But some anchor babies are born to “birth tourists” who arrive weeks before birth and do so specifically in order to have an American passport holder in the family to make securing their own visas easier.

It's no secret that the Republican Party has factions on both sides of the immigration debate. Many of the other 16 presidential hopefuls align more or less with the hardline stance Trump has taken, yet it was immigration moderate Jeb Bush who became a lightning rod for Democrat criticism for using the term "anchor baby."

In typical Jeb fashion, he tried to walk it back, saying, "What I’m talking about is the specific case of fraud being committed where there’s organized efforts — frankly, it’s more related to Asian people — coming into our country, having children in that organized effort, taking advantage of that noble concept which is birthright citizenship."

Needless to say, that muddled attempt at clarity didn't work, and Democrats stuck to their marching orders.

“The 'anchor baby' narrative is politics at its worst," wailed Rep. Linda Sanchez, chair of the all-Democrat Congressional Hispanic Caucus, in a Washington Post op-ed. It serves "mostly as a Republican dog-whistle," she added, "tapping into an implicit racial sentiment that suggests children of color are less than fully American or they’re just a vehicle for gaming the system."

Bush had no support from Asians, either. Rep. Judy Chu, chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, said, “All that is accomplished through talk of anchor-babies — be they from Latin America, Asia, Europe, or Africa — is to use xenophobic fears to further isolate immigrants. It’s time for our country to return to a substantive discussion on immigration."

But shouldn't a “substantive discussion” on immigration include more than identity politics? Birthright citizenship is a legitimate topic for consideration, yet Democrats never fail to blow their own dog whistle by crying "RACIST!" at anyone who broaches the subject. Rule of Law is essential to a free country, but Democrats (and too many Republicans) are more interested in craven pandering.

Like him or not, one can't deny Donald Trump's impact on the 2016 campaign, which is largely the result of his willingness to raise issues that establishment Republicans would rather sweep under the rug. At least some Americans are listening now.

read more at link below:

http://patriotpost.us/articles/37276#share

[kathyet]

[kathyet]

 

[Virginia Foulk]

Since Donald Trump has become the "leader" of the GOP, I just wonder why the true Tea Party members are supporting him. He did bring out what was needed and certainly got the GOP candidates awake to what We The People who care about our country and our Constitution believe are unconstitutional. But, and I believe this  - he doesn't really believe in our country and the natural rights and Constitutional rights supported by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He believes in himself and his rights. To me, he's just another person who wants to stir up the media - I also do not really believe he wants to be President. This is my opinion and I will stick to it, unless someone else has a more knowledgeable opinion about him.. So those of you who think he is good for the job, please explain.  

By the way, I am a bit surprised that a new member was removed after only 2 posts. And just so you know, that person has been a mainstay on another site. And he is a very strong conservative. Its a shame that his words will not be tolerated here because someone took exception. Having had discussions with this person for a few years, we have had disagreements, but there has always been respect for each other's opinions. Notice, I said opinions and they have never been outside your standards and your rules. So why!  And McFixit1, you know me as Minnow.  

[BLADES]

As far as trump goes I have never heard him say the word CONSTITUTION.... and that more than anything else really worries me....but for other reasons I would NEVER vote for him....NO MATTER WHAT!!!!..

as for a member being removed who/whom are you referring ...it would help to clarify the reasons????? 

[marrand]

Minnow: I know you as minnow too, and I know the type of friends you have.

M must have made a mistake in removing your friend, certainly not after two posts. I am sure if you pursue this matter and explain to your friend, he/she will come back and contribute. 

As I understand it, members on this site can be express their choice openly without being removed. You don't have to be for Trump to stay here and post. My opinion of Trump is similar to yours, and look....I lasted an entire week!!!

marrand

[M]

Marrand, I have only removed the foreigners from India and Africa and Ghana that have came to this site specifically to post advertisements. Some members have also changed their screen names since they have signed on. I would also like to know who you are speaking about.

M

[Virginia Foulk]

I have the name, but need to make sure I get it right again. I tried to find him on this site when I first signed in, wanted to be a friend, but couldn't find it. I tried both his IDs. So will get back to you and will tell him wehat you said. Maybe, he got on a wrong site also calling itself we the people. When Marrand first told me about this, I searched for wethepeople - didn't use the ning.com part. Took me some time to find this site. 

[M]

It's WeThePeopleUSA.Ning.com you have to put the USA into the address. Virginia.

[BLADES]

whats that called a...''merry go round''...virginia why would you bring it up if your not sure...

[Virginia Foulk]

Good question - because, at the time I was also under the impression there was only one WeThePeople. Discovered the USA, later when I didn't sign in to the other Wethepeople.  So, I'm now trying to find out if this person did go into the wrong site.  

[marrand]

Minnow,

Sorry about neglecting to tell you about the .ning part of this site. I figured on doing it next day, but you jumped here so fast I couldn't keep up. 

But I learned about the "USA" part just now from M. I was lucky: Mangus took my hand and led me here. 

[marrand]

Minnow, M answered. Who is this person? Do I know him/her?