From the August 26 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
Loading the player reg...
Conservative media praised 2016 GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump for forcibly removing Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from his Iowa press conference, claiming that Ramos "thinks Mexicans can barge in and demand rights that aren't theirs," and "was treated exactly as he deserved."
The National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) condemned GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump for ejecting Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from his press conference after Jorge Ramos attempted to ask a question about Trump's immigration proposals. Ramos was later permitted to return to the conference to question Trump.
Media have criticized Trump's immigration plan for its high cost, ineffectiveness, and unconstitutionality. The NAHJ's condemnation comes in the wake of increased efforts by the Trump campaign to reach out to the Hispanic media. NAHJ's statement:
The National Association of Hispanic Journalists condemns presidential candidate Donald Trump for allowing Univision journalist Jorge Ramos to be ejected from a news conference for simply asking questions.
"Mr. Ramos was doing what journalists have done for decades - asking questions!," said Mekahlo Medina, NAHJ President. "Ramos was simply trying to hold a candidate for president accountable for statements he made about a very important topic to the American people. Mr. Trump has avoided Mr. Ramos' attempts for an interview to reasonably discuss Mr. Trump's opinions and ideas about immigration and American children born to undocumented immigrants."
Mr. Trump's recent attacks on FOX News anchor Megyn Kelly is also unacceptable and disturbing. NAHJ stands with journalists everywhere who are simply working to pursue the truth and hold people in power accountable for their statements and their actions.
NAHJ invites Mr. Trump to answer questions by Mr. Ramos & other Latino journalists at #EIJ15 national conference in Orlando on September 18th.
[Update: Ramos was allowed back into the news conference after several other reporters questioned Trump on why Ramos was ejected. Ramos was able to ask several questions after being allowed back into the news conference]
From the August 26 edition of CNN's New Day:
Loading the player reg...
Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson, who recently suggested enslaving undocumented immigrants who don't leave Iowa after being warned, attacked Fox News host Bill O'Reilly for questioning Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's extreme views on birthright citizenship and deportation, and said Americans should "applaud" the billionaire businessman for starting a debate.
On his August 24 radio show, Mickelson -- who has recently come in for withering criticism for suggesting that undocumented immigrants who refuse to leave Iowa should become "property of the state" forced to do "compelled labor" -- brought up O'Reilly's recent interview with Trump. Mickelson criticized a question O'Reilly asked Trump about his position on birthright citizenship, complaining that O'Reilly's hypothetical example of two illegal immigrant parents with two legal American-born children -- he asked if Trump would order immigration agents to 'put them in a van [and] bring them to a detention center' for deportation -- was "a scam starting with the notion of birthright citizenship":
When he finished critiquing the Trump-O'Reilly interview, Mickelson read aloud an entire National Review article titled, "The Very Real Economic Costs of Birthright Citizenship," which relies heavily on data and analysis from the anti-immigrant nativist organization, the Center for Immigration Studies, to claim that birthright citizenship is harming America. Citing that data, Mickelson heaped praise on Trump and declared, "We owe Donald Trump at least a round of applause for bringing these issues to the forefront":
Mickelson has a long history of attacking immigrants and Hispanics in America. He has said that he assumes anyone with a Hispanic-sounding name who is involved with police is "not here legally" and that it's "a scam" to let undocumented students attend public schools in the United States.
But despite his racist rhetoric towards immigrants and Hispanics, Republican presidential candidates in the 2016 election have appeared on Mickelson's show over 40 times so far this year. Not even wide condemnation of his undocumented immigrant enslavement plan could keep them away: candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) appeared on his show four days after he said it. Mickelson's slavery plan did not come up.
After falling for right-wing media talking points about ending birthright citizenship and "anchor babies," Republican presidential candidates Gov. Scott Walker (WI) and former Gov. Jeb Bush (FL) are scrambling to justify and backtrack their offensive rhetoric.
Conservative media have spent years complaining about "anchor babies" and "birth tourism," and calling for an end to birthright citizenship -- a constitutional guarantee -- and recently they've found a sympathetic ear with Republican presidential hopefuls. Donald Trump called for dismantling the 14th Amendment as part of his immigration plan, a platform that quickly won him acclaim from right-wing pundits and outlets.
In turn, contenders Jeb Bush and Scott Walker offered their opinions on the matter. Walker told NBC's Kasie Hunt on August 17 that we should "absolutely, going forward" end birthright citizenship, and in an interview just two days later, Bush called for better enforcement to prevent "'anchor babies', as they're described, coming into the country" -- Remarks the two men are now frantically walking back.
Bush received heavy criticism for his use of the slur "anchor babies," and despite initially defending his remarks and telling reporters he didn't believe the slur was offensive, Bush has since changed his tune. During an August 24 news conference, Bush claimed that when he was talking about "anchor babies," he wasn't referring to Latinos, but instead, the term is "more related to Asian people." Bush's attempt to backtrack landed him in the midst of yet another right-wing media talking point, birth tourism.
Bush is trying to have it both ways here. He's trying to use the phrase "anchor babies" to reassure the base that Donald Trump isn't the only one who knows the downsides of birthright citizenship. But he's trying to tie it to a policy issue that actually does exist, rather than one that (to all appearances) does not.
What's more, it's clear Bush was referring to Hispanic immigrants with his initial remarks about "anchor babies." As MSNBC's Steve Benen explained:
Bush simply isn't telling the truth. We've heard the recording - when the Florida Republican used the term "anchor babies" last week, he wasn't talking about Asians and "birth tourism." He very specifically referred to Mexico, border enforcement, and "our relationship with our third largest trading partner."
Similarly, Walker received widespread media attention for his week-long effort to explain his call to end birthright citizenship. Three days after parroting the right-wing media talking point, Walker moved to refusing to take a position on birthright citizenship, arguing that until the border is secure, "any discussion about anything else is really looking past" what we need to do. By August 23, Walker had completely backtracked, stating he was not seeking to repeal or alter the 14th Amendment. As The Washington Post's Dana Milbank summarized the week's events, "Walker has spun himself into a triple axel -- and landed on his face."
And while Bush and Walker may be trying their best to sweep their initial condemnation of the 14th Amendment under the rug, it's not hard to see where they initially got their talking points.
Conservative media figures going back to Glenn Beck in his Fox News days have railed against so-called "anchor babies" and "birth tourism," the former a derogatory slur and debunked myth used against U.S. born children of non-citizens, the latter of which represents a sliver of births that experts have repeatedly pointed out are "extraordinarily rare" and an insignificant immigration problem. As Salon's Simon Maloy wrote, this "grossly nativist and legally dubious" rhetoric has nevertheless found a receptive audience among conservatives.
From the August 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson, who used his August 17 show to call for undocumented immigrants to perform forced labor as "property of the state," is now misrepresenting what he said in an attempt to play down his incendiary comments, claiming he merely said that Iowa should erect signs threatening undocumented immigrants with indentured servitude if they did not leave the state. What Mickelson actually said was that such signs would only work if some immigrants were actually rounded up and forced into compelled labor.
In the aftermath of Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson's public call to make undocumented immigrants who don't leave voluntarily the "property of the state of Iowa" and forced into "compelled labor," the state's largest newspaper published two opinion columns condemning Mickelson's rhetoric and calling for an end to attacks on immigrants.
On the August 17 broadcast of his radio show, Mickelson proposed a plan to drive undocumented immigrants out of Iowa by posting signs around the state saying that after an allotted time, any undocumented immigrant who remained in Iowa would become "property of the state of Iowa" and as such, would be forced to perform manual labor such as building a wall between Mexico and the United States.
Two columnists at The Des Moines Register called out Mickelson's comments, rebuking his rhetoric and calling for more civility in the immigration debate. In her August 22 column for The Register, Rekha Basu called Mickelson "this year's chief demagogue" for attacking undocumented immigrants and warned that by putting ideas immigrant slaver on the table, "people assume it has legitimacy." She urged that the debate over immigration be held "in a responsible way," and continued:
This inflammatory rhetoric is a long way from the approach of past GOP leaders like former President George W. Bush and former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel. Iowa's beloved former Iowa Gov. Bob Ray, who welcomed Southeast Asian war refugees in the 1970s, issued a statement earlier this year supporting Justice for Our Neighbors, which provides free legal services to unaccompanied undocumented minors. "Iowa is a welcoming state!" Ray declared. At least it was then.
I'm hopeful most Iowans will respond to Mickelson's slave-ownership plan by showing it still is.
Kyle Munson also criticized Mickelson's comments in an August 23 Register column, writing that after he heard what was said, he went to talk to Mickelson at the Iowa State Fair. Munson told readers that Mickelson "reaffirmed in person what he said on air," and added:
I just can't wrap my mind around Mickelson's proposal, whether as an intentionally controversial rhetorical device or serious policy. Makes me think of the horrific workhouses of Victorian England.
Like Basu, Munson -- who is hosting a forum on immigration where audience members will be able to discuss and debate the issue with panelists and presidential candidates -- called for civility in the immigration debate. He wrote, "As a columnist it would be easier for me to radicalize this immigration issue than to try to bring everybody beneath a big tent to be more productive. But I believe wholeheartedly that it's worth it."
From the August 23 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
Loading the player reg...
From the August 21 edition of Fox News' The Five:
Loading the player reg...
Fox & Friends joined The Daily Caller in an effort to make alleged terrorists Anwar al-Awlaki and Yaser Hamdi the face of birthright citizenship, falsely claiming the men were born in the U.S. to "illegal parents" and able to pursue terrorist activities without retaliation because their citizenship protected them.
From the August 20 edition of KLUZ's Noticiero Univisión Nuevo México:
Loading the player reg...
The Washington Post called out "the myth of the 'anchor baby'" for being a "largely a mythical idea" with little basis in the law.
On August 17, Donald Trump released the details of his immigration plan, which calls for Mexico to pay for the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border and seeks to end birthright citizenship in the United States. The following night on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Trump defended his extreme immigration proposals by repeatedly referring to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants as "anchor babies" and insisting that they are not U.S. citizens. Conservative media have since applauded the presidential candidate for using the derogatory term as other candidates such as Jeb Bush and Bobby Jindal also embraced it.
But, as The Washington Post explained in an August 20 article, "the anchor baby, while potent politically, is largely a mythical idea." Writing that the term has "little legal underpinning" as "being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in immigration court," the articles notes that most children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents "must wait until their 21st birthday to begin the lengthy process" of helping their parents become citizens:
But usually the debate has been about the residency of the parents, who after all are supposed to be using the child as their "anchor."
This is the definition that has little legal underpinning. For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant.
The only thing that a so-called anchor baby can do to assist either of their undocumented parents involves such a long game that it's not a practical immigration strategy, said Greg Chen, an immigration law expert and director of The American Immigration Lawyers Association, a trade group that also advocates for immigrant-friendly reforms. That long game is this: If and when a U.S. citizen reaches the age of 21, he or she can then apply for a parent to obtain a visa and green card and eventually enter the United States legally.
If a person has lived in the United States unlawfully for a period of more than 180 days but less than one year, there is an automatic three-year bar on that person ever reentering the United States -- and that's before any wait time for a visa. So that's a minimum of 21 years for the child to mature, plus the three-year wait.
And, for the vast majority of these parents, a longer wait also applies. If a person has lived in the United States illegally for a year or more, there is a 10-year ban on that person reentering the United States. So, in that case, there would be the 21-year wait for the child to mature to adulthood, plus the 10-year wait.
All told, the parents of the so-called anchor baby face a 24-to-31-year wait to even enter the United States, much less obtain a visa and green card or become a citizen.
From the August 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
Loading the player reg...