Pulling Up the Ladder
There was a bit of a dustup this morning over whether or not Michelle is herself an “accidental American” or “anchor baby”. [Link, Link, Link] I find both of those terms to be highly offensive and am putting them in quotes to emphasize that she herself has published them under her name.
I don’t find the issue all that interesting. But it is relevant to MM’s career, which has been carved out in part by attacking anyone who does not adhere strictly to our arbitrary borders, in both physical and philosophical senses. As I pointed out recently, she has an immeasurable disdain for the modern American tradition of liberally interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to natural born citizenship.
Of course, this is her right, but as it turns out, Michelle’s parents did not return to their native country for her delivery, thus “denying” their child the “chance” to earn her U.S. citizenship by a more “conservative”, “legitimate” method. Nor has Michelle renounced her natural born citizen status to subsequently apply for U.S. citizenship as a foreign-born national. Hell. If she had her way, her children wouldn’t even be able to attend public schools.
I have a few guesses as to how Michelle could respond to these insinuations, but I’d rather laugh along with all of you at the pseudo-indignance that will be on full display. She’s certainly more entertaining when she’s on the defensive.
Has she reported her parents to the INS?
Comment by Sirkowski — June 4, 2006 @ 11:37 pm
I suspect the response will be something measured and constructive like this.
Comment by Rev. Mykeru — June 4, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
But were Mrs Malkin’s parents here legally? If they were, your argument falls apart, and that is an issue you have not addressed.
Comment by Dana — June 5, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
That won’t stop the Blood Llama, you know.
Comment by Rev. Mykeru — June 5, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
I’m not so sure that even matters, Dana. Michelle’s position is to the extreme, as far as I can tell. (She doesn’t really stress this point often enough for me to know her explicit position.) But I get the impression that she believes only children born to two citizen parents should be granted birthright citizenship. This is from an older column by MM:
In the case of Hamdi’s parents, they were both in the U.S. legally, but only temporarily. I don’t know for certain what the legal status of the Malkins’ was ca. 1970, but from the cursory description given by other bloggers, Michelle does fit her own definition of “anchor baby”.
I’m not really sure what “argument” I’m making here that could “fall apart”. I’m just commenting on the dustup, and agreeing that MM’s derision of “jackpot babies” is somewhat disingenuous and hypocritical.
Comment by Ryan — June 5, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
Hey Dana!
Suck on this!
Comment by LA — June 5, 2006 @ 5:49 pm