About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Fox Nation: "GOP Targets 'Anchor Babies'"

February 17, 2010 1:17 pm ET by Media Matters staff

On February 17, Fox Nation used the derogatory and politically charged term "anchor babies" while linking to an article about a Republican effort to "abolish birthright citizenship" for children of undocumented immigrants:

Fox Nation: GOP Targets 'Anchor Babies'

Tags: Fox Nation

Support Our Work


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (February 17, 2010 1:21 pm ET)
      2  
      Abolishing birthright citizenship for anyone seems wrong. If you're born here you're a citizen.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bilbo_dies (February 17, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
        3  
        Not according to people like Tancredo. He wants to close the gates and kick all illegals out. We already have enough "real americans" so he figures we don't need anymore illegals.

        I guess we need to pull the plaque off the statue of liberty and reissue our immigration laws.

        "Sorry, we're full. Go away!!"
        Report Abuse
    • Author by MidnightWriter (February 17, 2010 1:22 pm ET)
      5  
      Just how will this effort to abolish birthright citizenship play with all of those who keep making those "original intent" of the Founding Fathers concerning the Constitution arguments?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 17, 2010 1:43 pm ET)
        3 1
        The Troglodytes have great disdain for the 14th Amendment. In fact, they seem to have little use for any of the Amendments except for the Second. To them, the other Amendments are just subversive Commie stuff.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MidnightWriter (February 17, 2010 2:01 pm ET)
          2 1
          I don't know about that. They seem awfully high on the 10th Amendment these days.

          They don't understand it, but, hot damn, how they like to scream about it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (February 17, 2010 2:25 pm ET)
            3 1
            Good point. That's where they came up with the idea of "States Rights".

            Funny how they can interpret the Constitution to make it say "States Rights", but can't seem to find a right to privacy in there anywhere.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Ouroborus (February 17, 2010 2:55 pm ET)
        2 1
        "Original intent" is just a conservative code phrase for 'things in the Constitution I agree with'. Anything they don't agree with isn't in the Constitution, or at least not the copy they read (hint: they've never read it). It's how they wrap their heads around defending blatantly unconstitutional things like warrantless wiretapping, while still complaining about the 14th amendment.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Tbone Slickens (February 17, 2010 11:26 pm ET)
          2  
          It's how they wrap their heads around defending blatantly unconstitutional things like warrantless wiretapping, while still complaining about the 14th amendment.


          I see you're not on the list and missed the memo like most others here.

          Better get a note off to Barry to fix that.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 17, 2010 1:23 pm ET)
      4  
      The other morning on FOX & Friends you could almost see Gretchen Carlson's butt, her skirt was so short. Then, during a quick break she must have been advised she was showing too much and when she next appeared on camera she had apparently tugged her skirt down a little. I say "a little" because there wasn't much skirt to cover her legs and a$$.

      A while back I read where people on the religious right were complaining about FOX's anchor babes being dolled up like a bunch of painted trollops and showing as much skin as they could get away with. Whatever happened with that...?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (February 17, 2010 1:25 pm ET)
        4  
        Oh...anchor BABIES! I thought it said anchor BABES.

        <NOTE: I've been dying for a chance to tell about Gretchen Carlson's wardrobe malfunction. Sorry if I had to fake it...> ;>)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by GBU-15 (February 17, 2010 1:24 pm ET)
      3  
      Michelle Malkin, calling Michelle Malkin. How do you feel now about your beloved GOP?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by GBU-15 (February 17, 2010 1:43 pm ET)
      1  
      No. They were in the country on student visas. But someone from a minority group should be careful about the nonsense that they spew. When ICE agents show up she might get PICKED up. Seeing how she LOOKS like one of THEM. Profiling you know.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bilbo_dies (February 17, 2010 1:53 pm ET)
        2  
        Oh, I am sure that they wouldn't start profiling people.

        Good point though. Just where do you draw the line?

        Just what is a "Real American"?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (February 17, 2010 2:30 pm ET)
          2  
          Someone who was born here or born abroad to Americans, that's who.

          And that's according to our Constitution - the thing they love to claim they support wholeheartedly. But they don't.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (February 17, 2010 2:25 pm ET)
        1  
        By the rights current definition that might count as undocumented. Didn't Alberto Gonzales say once that his parents first came to this country illegally?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (February 17, 2010 5:30 pm ET)
        1  
        You know I actually just remembered that Malkin wrote a book in favor of profiling. But if she got picked up she'd somehow spin it to be Obama's or some other Dems' fault.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (February 17, 2010 2:29 pm ET)
      1  
      Hopefully, they won't make this retroactive. If so, this population of this country will evaporate.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (February 17, 2010 2:37 pm ET)
      4  
      What I noticed in that link is that they claim that it's federal law that *interprets* the US Constitution about anchor babies being US citizens because of their place of birth.

      It's not a federal law that does this. It's the US Constitution that does it. And it's they who want to subvert the US Constitution to deny that right. The reason a pregnant woman is in the USA doesn't matter - it's the fact that a baby exits that woman's body while on US soil that's written in the Constitution!

      It says

      1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of 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.

      All persons born in the USA. It says NOTHING about the legal status of the mother when she expelled that fetus from her womb. If it happens on US soil, that baby is a US citizen. End of story.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (February 17, 2010 2:54 pm ET)
        5
      The legislation makes good sense...especially since we've been overrun by illegal aliens because of the woeful performance of the government in securing our borders.

      Citizenshiip should not be rewarded as the outcome of the illegal act of jumping our borders.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (February 17, 2010 3:29 pm ET)
          2
        Like I said, they better not make it retroactive . . . our population will evaporate overnight.

        The legislation would not pass the Constitutional test. A requirement of this sort would require a Constitutional amendment.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (February 17, 2010 3:39 pm ET)
          1 4
          If you would have followed mmfa's link and read the article before expressing your fear...you would have found:

          -- The legislation would only apply prospectively and would not affect the citizenship status of people born before the bill's enactment. --
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bilbo_dies (February 17, 2010 5:03 pm ET)
            2  
            In other words they want to change what the constitution says.

            The constitution does not make a distinction over how your parents got here. (other than diplomats, etc)
            Report Abuse
            • Author by shaggles (February 17, 2010 5:31 pm ET)
              1  
              They think they can do it by changing the interpretation of the 14th amendment. I think they're wrong.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (February 17, 2010 6:41 pm ET)
                   
                The 14th Amendment is too clear. Don't think that even Alito, Roberts and Scalia can get away with completely re-writing it.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (February 17, 2010 6:40 pm ET)
            1  
            I was JOKING about the first part, weasley. No fears, they'd have to split me into parts to make me go back where I came from . . . many of my ancestors were here greeting yours, I'm sure. Also, my family history on both sides can be traced to pre-Revolutionary War, I had ancestors who fought in it.

            It was the second part that was serious. The legislation would be un-Constitutional. The language of the Constitution is quite clear. The only way around it is a Constitutional amendment and I don't think that would ever, ever happen.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Tbone Slickens (February 17, 2010 11:37 pm ET)
      1 2
      Of course everyone is missing the point here. I doubt any/many of the posters have ever lived in a border area. Anchor babies is not a slur there. It is a fact and is reported as such in the local papers (at least it was in El Paso) because it has become a problem.

      The term applies to women in border towns that come over and have the progeny and RETURN to Juarez to live as normal. They then come back to the US to soak the system. It was so bad in El Paso that the hospital on I-10 now posts guards to check US ID's to keep this from happening.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.