Anchor Babies Away
.
.
“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.” —
The New York Times runs this same smug editorial every few months —
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.
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.
(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.
Even Canada, the country most similar to the United States, grants citizenship upon birth —
After MSNBC’S favorite half-black guest, professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, made the dazzling point last week that
“I want Americans to pause for a moment and ask themselves,”
Harris was off and running, babbling:
I don’t know —
Or is Ms. Lacewell one of those chest-thumping, nationalistic nativists who becomes hysterical when anyone brings up foreign law?
The Times’ editorial denouncing “nativist” conservatives ended with this little homily:
Of course, conservatives’ objection to judges looking to foreign law is that they’re judges, not legislators — least of all “ideal legislators.”
Judges are supposed to be interpreting a constitution and laws written by legislators, not legislating from the bench.
As the Times’ own august quote from James Madison indicates, he was referring to “the ideal legislator,” not “the ideal Supreme Court justice.”
In its haste to call conservatives names, the Times not only gave away that they think judges are supposed to be “legislators” —
Not being an easily frightened nativist like Harris-Lacewell, I think we should look at other countries’ laws, then adopt the good ones and pass on the bad ones.
For example, let’s skip clitorectomies, arranged marriages, dropping walls on homosexuals, honor killings and the rest of the gorgeous tapestry of multiculturalism.
Instead, how about we adopt foreign concepts such as disallowing frivolous lawsuits, having loser-pays tort laws, and requiring that both parents be in the U.S. legally and at least one parent be a citizen, for a child born here to get automatic citizenship?
Or (to paraphrase my favorite newspaper) has nativism in American politics become so rampant that it is considered scandalous in Democratic circles for a legislator to acknowledge paying any attention to foreign countries and their laws?
.
.
.
.
Leave a Reply