The DAILY BEAST And Birthright Citizenship—Is The Dam Bursting?
December 17, 2014, 08:27 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
Here's a typical Daily Beast, liberal media take on the birthright citizenship question from old media Nice White Lady stalwart Eleanor Clift, written before the Obama Executive Amnesty announcement:
FEAR-MONGERING

Get Ready to Start Hearing About ‘Executive Amnesty for Anchor Babies’

The president’s planned executive action for undocumented immigrant parents of U.S. citizens is about to bring the derogatory term ‘anchor babies’ into the mainstream, advocates fear.

By Eleanor Clift, November 19, 2014

The term “anchor baby” pops up every so often in the immigration reform debate but has failed so far to gain traction beyond the fringe on the right. That may change if President Obama goes ahead with an executive order that is expected to grant legal status and work permits to some 5 million undocumented immigrants who have been in the United States for an extended period of time and who have a close relative, namely a child, who is an American citizen.

“This is about keeping parents with their U.S. citizen children,” says Frank Sharry, founder of the pro-immigration group America’s Voice. “And yes, that would open the door to Republicans saying it’s executive amnesty for anchor babies.”

This week Diane Guerrero, who plays a tough Latina on the hit Netflix show Orange Is the New Black, revealed in a Los Angles Times op-ed her story of growing up the U.S. citizen daughter of undocumented immigrants. “She’s an anchor baby,” Sharry says, embracing Guerrero as the true face of what until now has been a derogatory term. [More]

As I say, that was before the amnesty. This is after the amnesty, in the same webzine, by Kelli Goff, pictured right:

1386079927894.cached[1]DROP THE ANCHORS

December 15, 2014

The Progressive Case Against Birthright Citizenship

If you’re here already illegally, sure, let’s set up a way to get you legal. But after a certain date, no more. And yes, it’s progressive.
Many progressives celebrated President Obama’s recent executive action that will halt the deportation of millions living in this country illegally, but the celebration may prove short-lived. Though polls show that Americans of color are elated by the move, with 64 percent of Hispanics surveyed supporting it, the same cannot be said for white Americans. According to Gallup, 62 percent of them disapprove, along with a slim majority of all Americans (51 percent to be exact.) But the numbers that may prove even more telling as immigration moves center stage ahead of the 2016 election are these: Poll results published this summer found that more Americans favor decreasing immigration than increasing it.

So if progressives are serious about finding a permanent solution to the immigration crisis that will generate bipartisan support, here’s a radical proposal. How about anyone who is already here illegally, who has not broken any laws, and registers by a certain date can stay, but going forward we all agree that if you are born to parents here illegally, you can’t, and neither can they. That’s right. I’m proposing that in the interest of protecting those already here illegally from the bureaucratic nightmare and moral quagmire of deportation we agree not to allow future populations to take advantage of birthright citizenship to allow entire families to sidestep our immigration laws.

Despite the fact that American allies Ireland and New Zealand repealed birthright citizenship within the last decade, in America mere discussion of doing so is usually dismissed as some kind of laughable (or worse) extremism. That is likely to soon change.

Earlier this year the Center for American Progress crowed about declining support for legislative efforts to repeal birthright citizenship, citing a smaller number of co-sponsors for Rep. Steve King’s (R-IA) 2013 bill in comparison to previous iterations. The language in King’s bill is similar to the language New Zealand used to amend its citizenship requirements in 2005. Under the new requirements, simply being born on U.S. soil would no longer be enough. At least one parent would have to be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. King’s bill would also make exceptions for military service.

Yet King and others are likely to find new support for such measures thanks to a surprising source: the President. Those most likely to benefit from the President’s executive action are parents here illegally whose children were born here, and are therefore American citizens. With this move the White House unintentionally bolstered a long-standing conservative argument: that there are those here illegally for whom having children is not merely an emotional choice but a tactical one. Have a kid here –what some pejoratively refer to as an “anchor baby” – and it is tougher to be deported. Thanks to President Obama we now know this to be 100 percent true. [More]

All the links in the blockquotes are in the original. So it's two different views from the same paper—Eleanor Clift is insisting that we only hear about "anchor babies" and birthright citizenship from the "fringe" by which she means Roy Beck and Steve King, and then Kelli Goff comes along and supports it for Progressive reasons—from the opposite fringe.

This is one more sign of the debate shifting in our favor.

By the way, Ms. Goff's piece has a "Drop The Anchors" headline; our own major piece on this, in 2001, was called Weigh Anchor! Enforce the Citizenship Clause, August 31, 2001.

And since both Goff and Clift insist that "anchor baby" is derogatory, let me say that no one is insulting babies.It's their parents who are in effect stealing citizenship for them that are the problem.