The Economist on Birthright Citizenship: Why not be scared?
August 21, 2010, 04:57 PM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
The Birthright Citizenship controversy has reached The Economist Amending the amendment A challenge to an American birthright August 19th 2010

Of course The Economist has a long history of block-headedness on immigration, possibly reflecting the Cheap Labor Lobby orientation of its readership. The discussion is predictably carelessly formulated and tendentious. Referring to

America’s hallowed principle of birthright citizenship. The policy, established after the civil war by the 14th amendment to the constitution, is seen as one of the party’s greatest feats.
is disturbingly ahistorical. Some still claim Abraham Lincoln’s achievement in making America the only white country needing a frightful Civil War to end slavery as a virtue, but until recently very few realized that the Supreme Court a generation later injected an immigration aspect into the 14th Amendment in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case. Manifestly the actual purpose of the Amendment was to prevent ex-Confederates regaining control of their States by disenfranchising Blacks.

Still The Economist does come up with a cute word-toy

Only about a sixth of the world’s nations practise birthright citizenship

The comment section has an interesting exchange. A Treason Lobby partisan �Objective79� snarls

You are just scared that those of Hispanic ancestry will change the political landscape because of their high fertility rates. We see right through the constitutional tree trunks you hide behind.

His opponent �simon� mildly and accurately replies

Not at all. My Italian ancestors, all of whom were alive when I was born and who I remember well, did this to a lesser extent 100 years ago. But they all came here legally. I am concerned with rewarding people who are here illegally...

VDARE.com says Americans should be scared that their children’s national heritage is being stealthily stolen from them by the progeny of alien economic migrants via a Constitutional misinterpretation.

And very angry.