A combative reporter objected to Bush sibling Jeb’s use of the term “anchor babies” to describe the children of illegal aliens born in the United States.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21, 2015 – “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em,” goes the old saying. And Republican contenders for their party’s nomination for president are taking time away from criticizing frontrunner Donald Trump and are starting to sound a lot like him
A combative reporter objected to Bush sibling Jeb’s use of the term “anchor babies” to describe the children of illegal aliens born in the United States. These children make it nearly impossible to dislodge their parents from the country, hence the term.
“No,” said Bush.
“You don’t regret it?” the surprised reporter asked again.
Bush said, “Do you have a better term?”
“I’m, ah, I’m asking you,” said the visibly shaken reporter.
“You give me a better term and I’ll use it. I’m serious,” said Bush while giving the reporter a conciliatory pat on the arm.
Another reporter picked up the baton, “Isn’t that language, anchor baby, is that not bombastic?”
“No, it isn’t,” Bush repeated. “Give me another word.”
And with that, the swarm of mainstream media scribblers shot out a cacophonous chorus of politically correct choices.
“What I said was it’s commonly referred to [as] that. That’s what I said. I didn’t use it as my own language. What we ought to do is protect the 14th [Amendment].”
It was at this point that Bush gave the press something they wanted to hear. “You want to get to the policy for a second? I think that people born in this country ought to be American citizens. Okay, now we got that over with.”
Amber Phillips of the Washington Post said, “The rulers of the world, a.k.a. Google, have decided on the controversial term ‘anchor baby.’ As you’ll likely notice right away: it’s a noun. And it’s offensive.”
While on the campaign trail, Donald Trump told a gathering of reporters, “There’s a very big question as to the anchor babies. They’ve been talking about it for years. There’s a very big question as to whether or not the 14th Amendment actually covers this. We’re going to find out whether or not it does. Changing the 14th Amendment would take years and years – a long, drawn out process. A lot of people think that it is absolutely, in terms of anchor babies, that it is not covered,” said Trump.
“Are you aware that the term ‘anchor baby’ – that’s an offensive term,” asked an angry reporter.
“You mean it’s not a politically correct and yet everybody uses it?” said Trump. “So, you know what, give me a different term. Give me a different term. What else would you like to say?”
The reporter mumbled a barely audible alternative.
Trump, like a conductor of a symphony orchestra, swung his index finger through the air as he counted each politically correct syllable.
“Oh, you want me to say that? I’ll use the word ‘anchor baby’.”
The reporter started to object, but Trump stopped him, “Excuse me! I’ll use the word ‘anchor baby’!”
The media obsession with finding a politically correct replacement term for “anchor baby” distracts from the central question of judicial fiat, overreach, activism.
The 14th Amendment was not written to guarantee American citizenship to people sneaking into the country illegally. It was the great abolitionist and “radical” Republican (a tea party activist of his day) Thaddeus Stevens who introduced the 14th Amendment in 1866 for consideration before Congress.
The amendment was specifically written to protect newly freed slaves from black-hearted, black-robed occupants of the bench. It was the courts that were vehemently opposed to emancipation.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott vs. Sandford (1857) said American-born blacks were not citizens and had no standing before any court in the land. The amendment was designed to prevent the courts from undermining what 596,670 Union soldiers and an American president gave their lives to end. Slavery.
The 14th Amendment told the tyrants of the courts in no uncertain terms that blacks were entitled, under the law of the land, to “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The 14th Amendment forced the courts to observe the natural rights of former slaves and their descendants in perpetuity.
The amendment, however, did not apply to native-born members of the nation’s Indian tribes. The government of the United States had always dealt with them as separate nations, entering with them into treaties ratified by Congress.
It was not until President Calvin Coolidge signed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 that Native Americans were recognized as U.S. citizens.
The idea that anchor babies are an issue settled by law is preposterous.
As the federally-funded mouthpiece of U.S. government nonsense, National Public Radio, said, “When it comes to the issue of birthright citizenship, while some conservatives disagree, a lot of legal scholars believe it is settled law.”
Lucky for us, our federal republic is a nation of laws and not legal scholars.
As I recall, an army of such worthies once testified before Congress to say that certain actions of a sitting president (Bill Clinton), the suborning and committing of perjury, did not rise to the level of impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
But Trump’s stance on illegal immigration may eventually push the anchor baby issue beyond the irrelevant opinions of legal scholars and squarely before the high court.
It will fall to the evil institution that attempted to anchor slavery in the U.S. Constitution to decide what it means to be a citizen of these United States.
The likely ruling may finally convince the people of the United States that it’s time to call an Article V convention of states to take back our Constitution from the media’s dissemblers, legal scholars and judicial tyrants.Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.