Going “Nativist”

August 30, 2010 By 10 Comments

After MSNBC’S favorite half-black guest, professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, made the dazzling point last week that “all babies are anchor babies” because “I certainly know my 8-year-old has anchored the heck out of my life,” thereby winning this week’s witty wordplay contest, she claimed to be stumped on how citizenship could possibly be determined if not by location of birth.

“I want Americans to pause for a moment and ask themselves,” Harris-Lacewell said portentously, “on what basis would you determine citizenship, if not based on where a child is born?” (Luckily for Harris-Lacewell, U.S. citizenship is not granted on problem-solving abilities.)

Harris was off and running, babbling: “Do you have to have two parents who are citizens? How about grandparents? How about great-grandparents?”

I don’t know — how does Sweden do it? How about Denmark? Maybe we should check the laws of every other country in the universe — especially the ones liberals are relentlessly demanding we emulate!

Or is Ms. Lacewell one of those chest-thumping, nationalistic nativists who becomes hysterical when anyone brings up foreign law? Where is The New York Times when we need it?

The Times’ editorial denouncing “nativist” conservatives ended with this little homily: “(Republicans) might want to re-read James Madison’s description in the Federalist Papers of the ideal legislator: ‘He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations.’”

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. Hey, whose turn is it to remind The New York Times that the legislative branch of our government is different from the judicial branch?

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” — a point they’ve been denying for decades — but also provided a ringing endorsement for ending birthright citizenship.

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? If so, then Democrats might want to re-read James Madison’s description in the Federalist Papers of the ideal legislator: “He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations.”

COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER

Pages: 1 2

Filed Under: FrontPage
About

  • 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.