Going “Nativist”

Pages: 1 2

“Nativism in American politics has become so rampant that it is considered scandalous in Republican circles for a judge to acknowledge paying any attention to foreign courts and their legal rulings.” — New York Times editorial, Aug. 3, 2010

The New York Times runs this same smug editorial every few months — at least I think it’s the same editorial — to vent its spleen at conservatives who object to American judges relying on foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

But when it comes to anchor babies, The New York Times and the entire Democratic establishment plug their ears and hum rather than consider foreign laws on citizenship. (For more on this, see “Mexican immigration law versus U.S. immigration law.”)

Needless to say, America is the only developed nation that allows illegal aliens to gain full citizenship for their children merely by dropping them on U.S. soil.

Take Sweden — one of the left’s favorite countries. Not only is there no birthright citizenship, but even the children of legal immigrants cannot become Swedish citizens simply by being born there. At least one parent must be a citizen for birth on Swedish soil to confer citizenship.

(Applicants also have to know the lyrics to at least one ABBA song, which explains why you don’t see groups of Mexicans congregating outside Ikea stores.)

Liberals are constantly hectoring Americans to adopt Sweden’s generous welfare policies without considering that one reason Sweden’s welfare policies haven’t bankrupted the country (yet) is that the Swedes don’t grant citizenship to the children of any deadbeat who manages the spectacular feat of giving birth on Swedish soil.

In Britain, only birth to at least one British citizen or the highest class of legal immigrant, a “settled” resident with the right to remain, such as Irish citizens, confers citizenship on a child born in England. And if the British birthright is through the father, he must be married to the mother (probably a relic from Victorian times when marriage was considered an important institution).

Even Canada, the country most similar to the United States, grants citizenship upon birth — but excludes the noncitizen parents of anchor babies from receiving benefits, such as medical care, schooling and other free stuff given to Canadian citizens.

Pages: 1 2

  • E.C. Everett

    Ann, stop being so racist (read: You nailed us, Ann. Our logic is non-existent, but we emote with panache. Love always, Pinch).

  • watchful

    Oh, here we go again! Racist? No, no you are confused. That's what you are supposed to say when we didn't want Obama to be president. remember? Come up with another excuse. I think you've worn out that excuse's welcome. Let's try, "Oh, you are so uncharitable." Or how about, "You're just greedy, you want all the freedom for yourself." There must be a thousand slurs you can hurl at us plus you are so entertaining. We just stand by, shaking our heads and saying how remarkable you all are. Come on, really you can do better than "racist." Or, maybe, is that the one word fits all, new modern approach to playground bullying? Kinda like being ugly when I was 6 or 7? That was useful at that age the same way "racist" is useful to democrats of all ages. Come on, it's so passe and cliche and all that. Give us a new one.

    • http://woodedpaths.blogspot.com/ DWPittelli

      Please read more carefully before attacking a commenter. Everett was being ironic, and was even explicit about it, parenthetically putting the words into the mouth of the publisher of the NY Times.

  • Incurable Ennui

    You start off this article by using "smug" as a term of derision… irony alert.

  • Old Bob

    When Madison used the phrase "the law of nations" he was using the traditional name for International Law — the body of law that allegedly governs relations between nations. It is equivalent to the use of "the law of contract" or "the law of torts" to describe the body of laws governong those subjects. The phrase "law of nations" has nothing to do with the laws that govern behavior of citizens within a nation. It certainly does not suggest that a law governing, say, voting rights in Ireland should be used by US judges in coming to a decision on voting rights in the US. Had Madison intended that, he would likely have referred to the " laws" of nations.

  • Barry O'Toole

    Finally, a policy that is tougher on immigrants in Canada than in America. This is something that the new Congress can look into in January.

  • USMCSniper

    The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. The United States is unusual in its offer to extend citizenship to anyone born on its soil. Other developed countries have changed their citizenship practice to eliminate the problems caused by the practice of birthright citizenship.1 The anchor baby problem has grown to such large proportions that the United States can no longer afford to ignore it. The logical first step for correcting the problem is for Congress to adopt legislation clarifying the meaning of the 14th amendment.

  • Dusty 'yes' key

    Ann, your sense of humor eviscerates the ignorami even better than your logic.

  • guest

    Whose banging you now Ann ,must be a lefty

  • http://www.ukpandorabracelets.com/ pandora

    but excludes the noncitizen parents of anchor babies from receiving benefits, such as medical care, schooling and other free stuff given to Canadian citizens.