The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Linda Chavez V. Trump
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Open-borders enthusiast and syndicated columnist (and board member of janitorial-services megafirm ABM) Linda Chavez has been reading Donald Trump’s position paper on immigration.

Naturally she has things to say about it: so many things, she promises future columns dealing with Trump’s proposals.

In her current column she tackles Trump’s call for an end to birthright citizenship.

Trump’s proposal to eliminate birthright citizenship is downright un-American. [Donald Trump is dead wrong about ‘anchor babies’ by Linda Chavez; New York Post, August 21st 2015.]

“Un-American” is technically correct: most nations in the Western hemisphere offer birthright citizenship. Only the Bahamas, Chile, Colombia, Haiti, and Suriname do not, according to the list at NumbersUSA (unless I missed one).

This is a pie that can be cut several ways, though. Whether or not Trump’s proposals are un-American, birthright citizenship itself is un-Developed. Among developed nations, on the IMF definition of “developed,” only the U.S.A. and Canada have birthright citizenship. That’s worldwide, not just in the Americas.

By the same token, birthright citizenship is un-Anglo-Celtic by a margin of two to four: The U.S.A. and Canada have it, but Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, and the U.K. don’t.

You might argue that enthusiasm for birthright citizenship is an index of how much you’d like the U.S.A. to resemble Latin America versus how much you’d like us to retain our Anglo-Celtic exceptionalism. That’s somewhat of a stretch, I’ll agree, but it does take some of the shine off Ms Chavez’s use of “un-American.”

Trump says birthright citizenship “remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration,” without adding any evidence to support it.

There’s a reason Trump offers no evidence: because it contradicts his claim.

The hysteria and misinformation prevalent on the right imagine hordes of pregnant Mexican women camped out on the border just waiting to cross and give birth to newly minted American citizens at US taxpayer expense. But the facts show otherwise.

An analysis of census data reveals that among births to illegal immigrant mothers in 2009-2010, 91 percent had been in the country for at least two years, and two-thirds had arrived at least five years before giving birth.

I think we have to give Ms Chavez a point there. Trump was speaking hyperbolically.

Illegal immigrants come here to work …

Illegal immigrants are here illegally. They have no right to “come here to work,” and they are breaking our laws by doing so. As Trump says, the people’s executive should enforce the people’s laws.

And whatever they originally come here for, they soon become massive users of public welfare services.

… not to “drop anchor babies,” an ugly term used to refer to innocent children.

Ugliness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I can’t see anything wrong with “anchor babies.” It undoubtedly expresses vividly the way many, perhaps most, birthright-citizenship parents regard their offspring.

The question of whether these children are citizens by birth is a settled matter of law.

Here we get into the legal and constitutional weeds on the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, and the rest. See pages 35-40 of Ann Coulter’s book, or the fine long article by Howard Sutherland published here on VDARE.com fourteen years ago.

It seems to me that lengthy argumentation about the jurisprudence on birthright citizenship, while no doubt interesting in its own way, is missing an important point.

Important point. Is birthright citizenship the right policy for the U.S.A. today? We have changed our collective mind about all sorts of things that our Constitution and laws once allowed—most notably slavery, of course. Perhaps we should change our minds about this. Is birthright citizenship a good thing for us today, or not? What are the arguments for it, as benefiting the U.S.A. and U.S. citizens? May we hear them, please?

Let’s hope we don’t need a Civil War to sort this one out.

At the time the 14th Amendment passed, there was considerable debate regarding groups that would be equivalent to today’s illegal immigrants, though the distinction between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants did not apply because no laws restricted immigration then.

Sen. Edgar Cowan, D-Pa., railed against those whose citizenship might be affirmed under the new amendment, calling for “expelling a certain number of people who invade her borders; who owe to her no allegiance; . .  . who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him.”

Sound familiar? But he wasn’t talking about Mexicans. “I mean the Gypsies,” he said.

If that’s what he meant, I must say, Sen. Cowan was talking good sense.

Another Cowan diatribe sounds eerily prescient of Trump’s warnings: “There is a race in contact with this country which, in all characteristics except that of simply making fierce war, is not only our equal, but perhaps our superior.”

This will be baffling to readers unfamiliar with 19th-century American anxieties. Why doesn’t she tell us which race Sen. Cowan meant? Is it over-suspicious of me to think that perhaps she left the race unidentified so that some subset of her readers would take the Senator’s remarks to have been anti-Semitic?

In fact Sen. Cowan clarified his meaning in his next sentence: “I mean the yellow race; the Mongol race.” He was expressing the common and perfectly reasonable fear that our Pacific coast, under-populated and remote from the centers of American civilization, would succumb to a mass influx from China, then populous at the Malthusian limit and in the throes of late-dynastic turmoil.

ORDER IT NOW

(Note that Sen. Cowan’s fears were founded in part on the belief that East Asians were “perhaps our superior.” A little later he says: “Of their industry, their skill, and their pertinacity in all worldly affairs, nobody can doubt.” The same fear of admitting great numbers of a superior race shows up in the congressional debates on Japanese exclusion in the 1920s. Racist? I guess so; but surely not “supremacist.”)

… Trump is dead wrong on birthright citizenship, and Republicans shouldn’t follow him down the rabbit hole.

Once again: If birthright citizenship is a good thing for our nation today, let’s hear the arguments.

If the legal/constitutional position is what Ms Chavez says it is, but no longer the right policy for our country, let’s change it, as other nations have done: Australia (2007), New Zealand (2005), Ireland (2005), France (1993), …

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration 
Hide 41 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. J Yan says:

    Whatever lowers Ms. Chavez’s nanny bills is good for America, Central America that is.

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
  2. Mr. Anon says:

    Linda Chavez is a professional Mexican. Why should I care what she thinks? She says ending birthright citizenship is “unamerican”? She is wrong. My ancestry goes back to and before the revolution, and it is my people who wrote the Constitution, not hers. Honestly, this is more my country than hers.

    • Replies: @Mr Darcy
  3. iffen says:

    Once again: If birthright citizenship is a good thing for our nation today, let’s hear the arguments.

    It is a good thing for our nation because for over two hundred years we have been among the leaders in extending basic human rights to all people within our jurisdiction. (Granted that we were slow in overcoming the speed bump of slavery and before that we have our less than inspirational treatment of the Indians.) The connection between land and territory and a group of people has not been superseded by any higher value. It is a crime against humanity to not allow a person born into a society to have a place within that society. A baby born into our society has a right to an equal place here based upon the tie of our society to our land. We are the creators of our society; not the baby. If we fail to deal with illegal immigrants, it is our fault, not the baby’s.

  4. Corvinus says:

    “My ancestry goes back to and before the revolution, and it is my people who wrote the Constitution, not hers. Honestly, this is more my country than hers.”

    “Your people” were technically invaders. And, if your people are English, you are correct on one level. On the other hand, all other European groups back at the time of the Constitutional Convention had “broken social ranks” by intermarrying. That is, it was considered unsophisticated in Europe for an Englishman to marry a non-English woman. And it is no more your country than any other legal citizen that resides in America, past or president. Get off your high horse.

  5. Mr Darcy says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Right you are! And the Constitution was written by OUR ancestors specifically and pointedly “for ourselves and our posterity” not for the whole world. It is OUR country.

  6. @iffen

    It is a crime against humanity to not allow a person born into a society to have a place within that society.

    So a person born to parents foreign to both his birthplace and to each other, like Ted Cruz, get to enjoy three citizenships?

    So a foreign child born to parents patiently awaiting a legal visa is at a disadvantage to one born to lawbreakers? You think that’s fair? You can’t see how twisted that is?

    Why does “born on our territory” translate to “born into our society”? Is someone born on a bus an employee of Greyhound? Is someone squatting in your summer cabin part of your family?

    • Agree: JSM
    • Replies: @iffen
  7. @Corvinus

    “Your people” were technically invaders.

    Anyone born outside Kenya or Tanzania is “technically” an invader. Out of Africa, after all.

  8. iffen says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    So a person born to parents foreign to both his birthplace and to each other, like Ted Cruz, get to enjoy three citizenships?

    I don’t really have an opinion on the extension of citizenship by another county to one of our citizens.

    But if you are suggesting that Ted Cruz needs to be deported, I will not come to his defense.

    So a foreign child born to parents patiently awaiting a legal visa is at a disadvantage to one born to lawbreakers? You think that’s fair? You can’t see how twisted that is?

    Twisted is a strong word and I am not sure that it applies here.

    It is very unfair to would be immigrants who abide by the law when we allow those who do not observe the law to end up in a better position. However, I point out that the babies don’t really have a lot of control over where they are born.

    Why does “born on our territory” translate to “born into our society”? Is someone born on a bus an employee of Greyhound? Is someone squatting in your summer cabin part of your family

    I am just going to skip this part because it doesn’t make any sense.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
  9. Corvinus says:

    “And the Constitution was written by OUR ancestors specifically and pointedly “for ourselves and our posterity” not for the whole world. It is OUR country.”

    

You do realize that those ancestors were of English descent, not French, Dutch, German, Irish, African, etc. So, when you say America is “our” country–when, of course, it’s ALL of OUR country–you are observably showing your disdain for whites and Europeans. It’s expected that the colored races, from your vantage point, are to be ignored.

    “Anyone born outside Kenya or Tanzania is “technically” an invader. Out of Africa, after all.”

    No, not really. If one has earned citizenship via legal means, he or she is not an “invader”. They are an American.

    • Replies: @anowow
    , @JSM
    , @Anonymous
  10. @iffen

    I am just going to skip this part because it doesn’t make any sense

    No. You’re skipping it because dealing with it would expose how foolish your own position is.

    Your comments are just wordplay, depending on double meanings of the phrase “into our society”–entering in the sense of going in and entering in the sense of beginning participation or taking up a role. Babies born on US territory to people who are not recognized to have a place in US society are in no way “born into society” in that second sense.

    Extending the logic of your duplicitous comments, we would also have to admit that people visiting the US are “part of our society.” Ergo, any tourist who walks on US soil should be granted citizenship.

    Likewise, your mention of the connection between land, territory, and society has the causation going the wrong direction. It’s not land that defines society, it’s society that defines territory, which is imposed on land. This is demonstrated in part by the fact that territory can, in a limited and abstract way, be imposed on non-US lands through treaty. (For example, intellectual property rights and tariff agreements.)

    Your beliefs about land and society are inherently mystical, which we can demonstrate in part by asking why birth is the marker of entering society. An 8-month-old fetus receives essentially the same investment (resources, attention, and care) from society as a 10-month-old newborn. Isn’t it a crime against humanity not to grant citizenship to the fetuses of women who come to the US? What is the important ethical (not traditional or mystical/religious) change that takes place when a person passes through the vaginal canal?

    Hey! I have a new business idea… I’m going to charge high prices to Chinese couples to fly them over the Aleutian Islands, where they can join the mile-high club. The man will have passed through the vaginal canal of a non-citizen, but over US land, so technically he’s becoming a part of US society and needs to be granted citizenship!

    Anyhow, if there were an absolute connection between land and people as you suggest, then Reg would be absolutely correct that squatters on your property would be part of your family.

    • Replies: @anowow
  11. Jefferson says:

    It is only a matter of time before the Left declares Anchor Baby to be the new N word in terms of what they consider to be racially offensive hate speech.

  12. I share Linda Chavez’s distaste for “anchor baby” — not because this term compares infants to boat-immobilizing anchors (which can be beautiful artifacts), but because the anchor metaphor is inaccurate. Keeping to a nautical metaphor, these newborns should be called “grappling-hook babies”, who help themselves and their compadres to come aboard someone else’s ship.

    • Replies: @CK
  13. anowow says:
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus you ignorant sl..t.

    We should start charging you for history lessons. But you aren’t about advancing the truth, are you hoss.

    There were Germans in the American Revolution (and not just a handful of emigrees) as well as people of French descent and Irish and Scottish. Indeed we had several famous Poles who got a number of places named after ’em.

    Linda Chavez’s ancestry predates the English in North America.

    She is of old New Mexican stock. So as a white Hispanic she is more culpable than the rest of us for why Mayan kids can’t read. Her ancestors’ countrymen down in Old Mexico and elsewhere, including her compatriot Jorge Ramos, are really to blame.

    500 years of crappy leadership on the part of peninsularos and criollos. Somebody has to pay for their mistakes, and Jorge, in classic Mediterranean style, will deflect, deflect, deflect the blame. It’s the way shame cultures work. The problem is American whites are from a guilt culture, so they are vulnerable to the wretch’s game.We need too call people from these sorts of cultures on their crap, more Donald Trump in yo’ face, and less Jeb Bush style excuses (like making excuses for those Iraqi cowards).

    The guerro talks about white privilege in America with a straight face.

    • Replies: @Bugg
  14. anowow says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    Well,

    Since we are thinking about how things affect THE CHILDREN. I propose prison jubilee and debt cancellation and free stuff for all kids equally. No more Bush children getting things the poorer kids can’t afford.

    Debtors’ kids are adversely affected by their parent’s decisions as do the children of prisoners and the poor. This isn’t fair.

    Of course any talk of racial disparity because of past events will be finished. Clean slate for all.

    We will all be anchor babies, baptized fresh and new by the magnanimity of boomer leaders who, along with giving away our patrimony, will quite rightly not expect us to be on the hook for their various unfunded liabilities.

    Come fellow babies, let’s waddle forward into the new century!

    No more of this letting the sins of the fathers descend on the children.

  15. @iffen

    “A baby born into our society has a right to an equal place here based upon the tie of our society to our land”. This doesn’t make any sense. Why does a baby born in Japan or Mexico for that matter not automatically become citizens there? Are they not tied to their land?

    One definition of society is ” a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests ”

    A baby doesn’t have any of these things. They will grow to have them if they are in a family that is part of that society, however the women having anchor babies are not part of our society. They are aliens. That doesn’t make them good or bad, but they not in our society. They are of Mexican or Chinese or Guatemalan or whatever society. They are merely in our territory.

    “If we fail to deal with illegal immigrants, it is our fault, not the baby’s.” Agreed. However it does not then follow that the baby is our responsibility. We are proposing to “deal with” illegal immigrants. By sending them and their anchor babies home.

    People act like sending illegals home is the same as launching them into outer space. They’d merely be sent back to where they came from. To their home. Where they belong.

    • Replies: @iffen
  16. pyrrhus says:
    @J Yan

    Linda Chavez is a hack publicist for the cheap labor lobby, that’s all. She is probably incapable of understanding that birth right citizenship was created by Justices with an agenda, and it can be taken away quite easily. While we’re doing that, we should remove SCOTUS jurisdiction over all such matters–yes, Congress defines that jurisdiction….

  17. Bill says:
    @iffen

    There are no arguments in your comment.

  18. Hrw-500 says:

    I wonder what Linda Chavez and to a latter extent, Sean Penn thinks of Venezuela’s president Maduro who closed borders because they got illegal aliens from Colombia? http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/president-closes-border-orders-1000-illegal-aliens-deported

    • Replies: @Jefferson
  19. iffen says:
    @William BadWhite

    Thank you for your reasoned comment.

    Let me state my opinions on some aspects and consequences of illegal immigration. This should obviate the need for others to impute certain opinions and positions to me.

    I am opposed to illegal immigration into the US. I think illegal immigrants should be apprehended and deported. I think the H-1B program should be suspended. I think we should have a hiatus for all immigration and entry visas until such time as we can reform the applicable laws and most important of all, exercise the political will to enforce those laws. Our arbitrary and lackadaisical enforcement of immigration law is unfair to the people who do comply with our current laws. On GP alone, I am repelled by the arbitrary and un-equal enforcement of any law.

    I do not like the idea of birth tourism and would like to see it stopped. If we had competent enforcement of our laws we could eliminate most of it. Then again, if we had competent enforcement of our current immigration laws a lot of these problems would not be before us.
    I try to be fair. Unlike the likely Republican presidential candidate, I don’t have a preference for Mexican anchor babies over the Asian ones.

    One definition of society is ” a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests ”

    Let’s go back about 160 years. A child born to a slave was born into “our society”, but they were not a citizen. Slaves were a part of our society.

    Illegal immigrants are a part of our society and have been for many years and will be for many years to come. You don’t like this and I don’t like it. That does not change the reality.
    I oppose the ending of birthright citizenship because we would end up with thousands and thousands of stateless people here, in our society. It is the “fault” of the illegal immigrant parents and “our” failure to enforce our laws. I do not think it is “right” to make the baby pay the price when they are 20-30 years old and find themselves stateless.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    , @MarkinLA
  20. Mr. Anon says:
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus says;

    “……………, it was considered unsophisticated in Europe for an Englishman to marry a non-English woman.”

    I fail to see what that has to do with the point at hand, and anyway, it’s not even true.

    “And it is no more your country than any other legal citizen that resides in America, past or president. Get off your high horse.”

    “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of …”

    I would suggest that you get off your high horse, but being a horses’ ass, you go around on two hind legs.

  21. @iffen

    Yes. Obviously, someone who was born here and has been living here for 30 years should not have their citizenship stripped now. But that can be dealt with easily while ending birthright citizenship. A 10 year old who was born here should be sent home with his parents.

    Slaves were truly born into our society because their biological and social networks at birth were both actually and legally integral parts of society. The existing society implicitly expected and accepted them. The situation is quite different for the children of illegal immigrants. Someone is NOT “born into society” just by virtue of being born inside that society’s territory.

    Again, as I mentioned above, by your reasoning, anyone who is actually living in our territory at any time is part of our society, so you should be calling for granting citizenship to all illegals, guest workers, and even tourists.

    Your concern for stateless individuals seems silly to me too. So what? Do you want to accept into our country anyone who renounces or is expelled from their home just to save them from the horrors of being disenfranchised? Are you worried they’re going to forced into slave labor? Do we not have protections for foreigners living in our land, and could these not be extended?

  22. MarkinLA says:
    @iffen

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/27/megyn-kellys-immigration-question-presents-a-false-choice/#disqus_thread

    The kids can go with the parent’s or be left with a relative – this is not our problem and nobody is being stripped of citizenship.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/140/text

    Once the bill is law no more citizenship past that point if the parents aren’t citizens.

  23. Corvinus says:

    “There were Germans in the American Revolution (and not just a handful of emigrees) as well as people of French descent and Irish and Scottish. Indeed we had several famous Poles who got a number of places named after ‘em.”

    Mr. Anon’s point was that “his people” wrote the Constitution. Those individuals were of English descent; therefore, they lay claim to “his” country more than the groups you mentioned. Do you agree with Mr. Anon’s assessment, because it is HIS view, not mine.

    “500 years of crappy leadership on the part of peninsularos and criollos. Somebody has to pay for their mistakes, and Jorge, in classic Mediterranean style, will deflect, deflect, deflect the blame. It’s the way shame cultures work. The problem is American whites are from a guilt culture, so they are vulnerable to the wretch’s game.We need too call people from these sorts of cultures on their crap, more Donald Trump in yo’ face, and less Jeb Bush style excuses (like making excuses for those Iraqi cowards).”

    I doubt you can reasonably hope to fit the entire population of a country under one label. If you care about accuracy in your work, you simply cannot accept these wild generalizations.

    “I fail to see what that has to do with the point at hand, and anyway, it’s not even true.”

    The point of intramarriage among European nations is relevant to the claim that those of English descent lay more of claim than other Europeans as being “the USA is my country”, considering that ethnic groups in the colonials were decidedly more likely to engage in intermarriage. The point is true; generally speaking, Europeans put pressure on its citizens to preserve the “purity” their respective ethnic groups—English marry only English, French marry only French, etc.

    “I would suggest that you get off your high horse, but being a horses’ ass, you go around on two hind legs.”

    The blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity referred to American citizens regardless of their racial or ethnic composition.

    • Replies: @anowow
  24. anowow says:
    @Corvinus

    Anyone who is successful in a socio-political system that can be objectively viewed with suspicion, e.g. Latin America, the Middle East, Southern Europe, Russia, the Balkans, Subsaharan Africa and identitarian hustlers in the West, warrants suspicion. They’ve learned the techniques used to get on top. If you succeed in a highly corrupt environment, you surely didn’t get there squeaky clean or tainted no matter what your individual worth.

    The problem is American whites just aren’t equipped to deal with it. Yes, we yell. Yes we also use public shaming as a socially conditioning technique. Yes we have white collar corruption. But let’s be honest, we have nothing on those cultures in which mistrust and amoral familism have permeated public life for centuries. Those same Americans who will scream at a politician at a Tea Party townhall will stand in line at any business and pay their taxes.

    Why deal with that pathological crap if we can avoid it? The US has its own pathologies and they are numerous and pervasive, but that doesn’t mean should import others. And just because reform has been possible in the past with groups who came from corrupt societies, doesn’t mean it will always work.

    I agree with liberals and leftists that the Constitution should reflect changing realities. I’d also say that the Declaration of Independence was hopelessly naive, written by a young, dreamy Virginian subject to flights of fancy, even if he could turn a fancy phrase. He was simultaneously one of the greatest minds our nation ever produced, whose ideas are models for us all, and a dangerous fool who should have never been allowed within twenty feet of pen or paper.

  25. Bugg says:
    @anowow

    As our genial host and others like Sailer have noticed, Mexico exports it’s poverty here, mostly Mestizo/Indio people. And it’s ruling class is mostly Spanish and very white. The Mexican cabinet and Supreme Court would not be out of place at all in a PGA event gallery, a Kenny Chesney concert or an NHL game. And then the likes of Carlos Slim gets a piece of all the remittances said exported underclass send home. And really if it’s all about “family”,why are we a party to encouraging Mexican underclass men to leave their families behind to be cheap labor in in the US? Which really is the crux of Ms. Chavez’s charade-the ruing classes of both countries get what they want; cheap labor in the US, that much less young unemployed male underclass in Mexico. And to hell with middle and working class America.

  26. Jefferson says:
    @Hrw-500

    “I wonder what Linda Chavez and to a latter extent, Sean Penn thinks of Venezuela’s president Maduro who closed borders because they got illegal aliens from Colombia? http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/president-closes-border-orders-1000-illegal-aliens-deported”

    Colombia must be quite a shit hole if Colombians see Venezuela as a vast improvement from their own country in terms of obtaining a higher standard of living.

  27. Hrw-500 says:
    @Jefferson

    And Colombia was much more worst in the 1980s-early 1990s back when Pablo Escobar de facto ruled Colombia. Could be some smoke screen from Maduro to hide then the truth is Venezuelians try to escape Venezuela to reach Colombia?

  28. MarkinLA says:
    @Jefferson

    Lilo de la Vega - Ana Lucía Barrera:Andrea

    They can export Lilo de la Vega, I’ll take two!

  29. anowow says:
    @Jefferson

    That’s kind of interesting, historically speaking, and just goes to show how oil and gas money really are like the Clampetts’ entirely dumb luck, turning previously undesirable locales into destinations. And makes you wonder what those places would be like if the world got off our dependence on petro products.

    Venezuela, when compared to Columbia, wasn’t preferrable in the pre-modern era. There was a less pleasant, unhealthy climate down in the Venezuelan llanos compared to the Columbian highlands. Reading Robert Harvey’s the Liberators, which is about the era of Simon Bolivar, one gets the impression that the Columbians were pretty civilized and bourgeois compared to the wild plainsmen, the llaneros, of what’s now Venezuela. Apparently those cowboys were slaves and other frontier flotsam with a considerable social and economic gap between them and the gentry, whereas there was a yeoman class in the Columbian Highlands.

    It seems that constitutionalism took off among the Columbians, but was “problematic” in Venezuela.

  30. Corvinus says:

    “But let’s be honest, we have nothing on those cultures in which mistrust and amoral familism have permeated public life for centuries.”

    Your entire argument rests on a false premise. You assume the places you mentioned “warrant suspicion”. You are clearly being subjective, not objective. Essentially, you are saying that Latin American, Middle Eastern, Balkan–hell, everyone–inherently is more susceptible to corruption (pathologically was the term you used) compared to white Americans and thus, ought to be mistrusted.

    “The US has its own pathologies and they are numerous and pervasive, but that doesn’t mean should import others.”

    Again, you are making the assumption that any and all places other than white America is decidedly more likely to be “tainted”. Rather than make wild generalizations, how about actually offering specific proof to back up your assertions.

    “I’d also say that the Declaration of Independence was hopelessly naive…”

    In what aspects? You are being purposely vague.

    • Replies: @anowow
  31. @Corvinus

    “Your people” were technically invaders.

    All people alive today are technically descended from invaders. By and large, the losers in these wars for resources (pastures, hunting grounds, farmland) are less likely to have passed on their genes.

  32. anowow says:
    @Corvinus

    No assuming to it. Corruption indices, poverty as indicator of corruption and poor leadership, anthropological studies that indicate if a society is plagued by extreme misogyny, low levels of trust, amoral familism or tribal/clan nepotism. Of the list I gave, YOU give me an example of ONE of country that is by any objective standard mostly liberal with a transparent government and whose indigenous cultures are committed to impartial meritocracy.

    Who said “white” America? That’s your little addition, channeling Professor Ignatiev, are you? Indeed Latin America has been historically ruled (or misruled) by a white or almost white elite. Eastern Europeans are white.

    Naive, yes. The Declaration of Independence should have been very specific. It should have used specific language limiting its claims to the American community as was. We could have incorporated later arrivals, but we would have much more control over the rate of incorporation and the terms on which they joined without being charged with hypocrisy and our indigenous leftist elements and cheap labor lobbies and war-mongerers would not have had such a strong propagandistic tool.

    But that’s Jefferson for you. All high-minded ideas, but not concerned with minor details. That fool committed us to all sorts of crap with his “all men.” Same goes for the 14th Amendment. It should have been much clearer and more specific, i.e. “we hereby grant citizenship to former slaves, who were held by in the territories of the US, excluding former slaves from foreign territories (e.g. West Indians like Louis Farrakhan, Colin Powell or Eric Holder), and their descendants.”

    Once again, though, why have a clear, rational policy when you can have ideological posturing?

  33. Corvinus says:

    Corruption indices, poverty as indicator of corruption and poor leadership, anthropological studies that indicate if a society is plagued by extreme misogyny, low levels of trust, amoral familism or tribal/clan nepotism

    “Of the list I gave, YOU give me an example of ONE of country that is by any objective standard mostly liberal with a transparent government and whose indigenous cultures are committed to impartial meritocracy.”

    Fallacy of composition.

    “Who said “white” America? That’s your little addition, channeling Professor Ignatiev, are you?”

    No addendum required. You provided the context with this statement–”The problem is American whites just aren’t equipped to deal with it.”

    “Naive, yes. The Declaration of Independence should have been very specific. It should have used specific language limiting its claims to the American community as was.”

    Right, because Jefferson and the other founding fathers should have inserted an asterisk to this phrase “All men* are created equal”. *Men being exclusively of English descent and having a certain amount of property. Would you even qualify under their metrics? Now who is being naive?

    “That fool committed us to all sorts of crap with his “all men.””

    Ladies, it is observably clear we have an elitist is within our midst.

    “[The 14th Amendment] should have been much clearer and more specific. It should have been much clearer and more specific, i.e. “we hereby grant citizenship to former slaves, who were held by in the territories of the US, excluding former slaves from foreign territories (e.g. West Indians like Louis Farrakhan, Colin Powell or Eric Holder), and their descendants.”

Charlie, black immigrants from the West Indies who legally came to the United States could have earned citizenship regardless of that provision. You’re not that very bright.

    • Replies: @anowow
  34. anowow says:
    @Corvinus

    Fallacy of composition? That’s a fancy way of not answering the question. Just one example, one. You can’t even give that.

    When did I mention property qualifications? Considering that men of non-English descent, including the partially Welsh Jefferson, were already in positions of responsibility and paying poll taxes, I doubt the founders would have limited it to men of English descent. My problem is the “all men”; it’s a pandora’s box.

    Of course Jefferson committed us to all kinds of crap. People use that phrase to drag Americans into all sorts of issues and rightly so. The problem isn’t with the arguments of Obama, Dubya, the 1965 immigration law, etc. They all are quite correct in arguing that Mr. Jefferson was making a claim for universal equality and simultaneously providing said universal rights as the moral basis of the revolution and subsequent state. That claim and the policies it provides cover for have not always been beneficial to the existing population, and are proving as time goes on to be positively negative. Why even argue on the basis of some vague natural law. Why not argue on the basis that our historical liberties were being abused by a centralizing London?

    Regarding the West Indians. They could have earned citizenship. I was just arguing for being very, very specific about which former slaves got citizenship. Because with leftists and liberals, you give them an inch and they take a very wide mile.

  35. JSM says:
    @Corvinus

    “Your people” were technically invaders. So, if you think America was “stolen,” you by staying here are receiving stolen goods and that’s just as heinous, so YOU leave.

  36. JSM says:
    @Corvinus

    So, when you say America is “our” country–when, of course, it’s ALL of OUR country–you are observably showing your disdain for whites and Europeans.

    You dumb shit.

    If you have any ancestors who came after 1776, you OWE ALLEGIANCE to the progeny of those folks that let YOUR ancestor(s) in. The fact that you want to effect your traitorous impulses of letting in new people who are not good for the posterity of the founding stock, shows that your ancestor should never have been let in so you wouldn’t be here.

    It’s like this: A guy decides to have a lovely party in his house. He invites you. You owe it to the host NOT to stop at the Bowery and bring along a bunch of bums who will ruin the party, on the excuse “hey, we’re all invitees here.”

    Same deal. Founders bequeathed America to their progeny. If some of that progeny a few generations later invited YOUR ancestor(s) and then YOU in your treachery let in, or advocate to be let in, hostile, or otherwise-undesirable-to-the-Founders’-progeny, foreigners, YOU should be thrown out.

  37. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    No, not really. If one has earned citizenship via legal means, he or she is not an “invader”. They are an American.

    Some of whom, like you, should be showing a little more gratitude to the “invaders” who did all the hard brave work of conquest ahead of you, instead of nursing resentment against their heirs, and debasing yourself and annoying everyone else with your hypocritical moral preening. (By the logic of which, you and yours are the cowardly receivers of stolen goods.)

    So “get off your high horse” about the “invaders”, without whom your later-arriving “real Americans” wouldn’t have a county to, ahem, “contribute to”.

  38. CK says:
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    What a superb image, unfortunately I don’t think it will supplant the anchor image anytime soon.
    I intend to borrow ( appropriate without payment ) the terminology in any future comments I make re this subject.

  39. @Jefferson

    Columbia has had the appalling disadvantage of being a US Ally.

  40. Corvinus says:

    “Fallacy of composition? That’s a fancy way of not answering the question. Just one example, one. You can’t even give that.”

    There is no question to answer because your premise is outright flawed.

    “When did I mention property qualifications?”

    You mentioned “specific language”. In the context of the time period, land requirements is absolutely relevant here.

    “I doubt the founders would have limited it to men of English descent.”



    Fine, let’s include Great Britain. The question remains, would you even qualify under their metrics?

    “I was just arguing for being very, very specific about which former slaves got citizenship.“

    Completely pointless for Congress at that time to undertake that nuanced endeavor. A slave is a slave is slave. They were set free and received citizenship.

    “They all are quite correct in arguing that Mr. Jefferson was making a claim for universal equality and simultaneously providing said universal rights as the moral basis of the revolution and subsequent state.”

    Are you an elitist?

    “So, if you think America was “stolen,” you by staying here are receiving stolen goods and that’s just as heinous, so YOU leave.”

    I never said America was “stolen”. I just find it ridiculous when anyone says that foreigners are “invading” our shores currently without taking into account the appropriate historical context.

    “The fact that you want to effect your traitorous impulses of letting in new people who are not good for the posterity of the founding stock, shows that your ancestor should never have been let in so you wouldn’t be here.”

    

Francis, lighten up. The “founding stock” of America includes Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans.

    “Same deal. Founders bequeathed America to their progeny.”

    You mean their white progeny? Don’t see anything in the Constitution that says the country ought to be white and only of English/British descent.

    “You owe it to the host NOT to stop at the Bowery and bring along a bunch of bums who will ruin the party, on the excuse “hey, we’re all invitees here.””

    Are you an elitist? Because that “founding stock” of English/British descent didn’t take too kindly at times to their fellow Europeans like the French and Spanish. They thought they were “trespassing” on their territory.

    “Some of whom, like you, should be showing a little more gratitude to the “invaders” who did all the hard brave work of conquest ahead of you.”

    Conquest. Exactly.

    “(By the logic of which, you and yours are the cowardly receivers of stolen goods.)”

    

Corrected for accuracy —> All citizens of America, past and present, are the benefactors of whites who conquered Native Americans in the name of progress and civilization.

    “real Americans”



    What are “real Americans”? What metrics are involved? Please, tell us.

  41. ChrisZ says:

    Love your point, Derb, about America changing its collective mind about various things. The Left is constantly harping on this–especially about how we need to dispense with all those hoary old ideas gathering mold in the classic texts of the founding. Gay marriage is only the most recent of these “mind changes,” lauded by the Left as courageous and defiant of the prejudiced orthodoxies of the past.

    But when it comes to the subject of birthright citizenship, their argument amounts to the assertion that it is the hoariest and moldiest of our Constitutional certainties–and THEREFOR cannot be tampered with.

    It would be nice to hear one of our Solons reply to any Leftists making this argument: “Whatever happened to the ‘living’ Constitution?’”

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS