Tag Archives: anchor babies

Bill Richardson, Invader Baby

The December 2007 issue of Playboy includes an interview with Bill "call me Lopez" Richardson. In part the introduction says (sorry no link):

Richardson’s run for president began 60 years ago–on the day he was born. His parents lived in Mexico City, where his father was a branch manager for National City Bank of New York. But he sent his Mexican wife to Pasadena, California for the birth of their child. This gave Richardson U.S. citizenship and also ensured that he met the constitutional requirements for the presidency.

Clearly Playboy could have summed it up, and in language more in tune with the zeitgeist, by simply saying Bill Richardson is an anchor baby. Since his parents weren’t poor and didn’t use him as an anchor it would have been even more accurate to describe him as an invader baby.

The interviewer does not question Lopez on either his name or his citizenship, and asks him only one immigration-related question:

PLAYBOY: As governor of New Mexico, you have a close-up look at our border with Mexico. How would you control the borders? You have said you don’t want a fence. What would you do to stop the flow across the border?

RICHARDSON: I’ll first tell you what I did as governor. I proposed doubling the number of border-patrol agents, which is consistent with a 9/11 Commission recommendation. I can easily see 15,000 at the border. Right now it isn’t adequately protected. I would extend the tour of the National Guard. Many of us had reservations about using the Guard for this, but it seems to be working; they’re deterring the flow. I would also increase the detection equipment at the border. My worst nightmare is nuclear material–uranium, plutonium–being transported by a terrorist across the border. And two years ago I angered a lot of Hispanic and immigrant groups by being the first governor to declare a border emergency. At the time, the border patrol was almost non-existent in my quarter. There were drugs coming in, violence–the flow was huge. I declared a border emergency, which enabled me as governor to hire local law enforcement. I took state appropriations to pay for law enforcement at the border, which is essentially a federal function. Also, I vetoed legislation that said local law enforcement couldn’t cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies.

So. Nothing about what to do with the millions already here. Nothing about his proposed policies or where they might lead in the future.

Let’s review then the thin gruel we do get, shall we?

Richardson, to his credit, at least accepts the reality that the flow across our border is huge. Or at least it was huge until, against his wishes, a small and unarmed contingent of Guard was put in place. So he’s seen the light now, and he’s willing to build a wall. Unfortunately, he favors building it out of people. This I think betrays a disingenuous but typically liberal intent. You see I give him credit for being smart enough to realize that people, unlike concrete and steel, can be bribed. We hear all the time how an X foot wall can be defeated by an X+1 foot ladder. We almost never hear how all that “flow” across the border is lubricated by money. Money that can much more easily make a government official look the other way than it can make steel and concrete obstacles disappear and then reappear.

We’re also constantly told by invasion-supporting wall-opposers that any wall whatsoever would be too expensive, which they can only say of course because they always neglect to factor in how much it would save. As anybody who works for a living realizes, a wall made out of people would only be more expensive. And as anybody who understands politics realizes, when politicians create jobs the last thing on their mind is getting work done. If for whatever reason we couldn’t build a chainlink and concrete wall then I would favor a human wall, in spite of the extra expense, because of my confidence in the aforementioned net savings. But this is all moot, because we can build a real wall, and the politicians will just have to make due with the lesser opportunities for featherbedding, payola, and other forms of corruption.

At the American Chronicle Mark Lowry noted another wrinkle to Richardson’s illegitimacy back in May, in an article titled Mexican Citizen May Be America’s Next President

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

“. . .
As Richardson explained in an article in the Washington Post, “My father had a complex about not having been born in the United States.” After the death of Richardson’s father in 1972, his mother was remarried, to Mexican nutritionist Salvador Zubiran Anchondo in 1986. …Bill Richardson was raised in Mexico City, but his parents sent him to Massachusetts at age 13 to attend a Boston-area preparatory school.”

The constitution doesn’t permit foreign citizens born and raised in a foreign country for their first 13 years of life to become president. How can anyone interpret the constitution in such a manner to permit an anchor baby who was not raised in the United States to become president? It is outrageous to permit the ruse of bringing pregnant women into the country for the expressed purpose of creating dual citizenship for United States benefits. Does it constitute 14 years of residency if they live in a territory of the United States and not the United States?

Hands up, how many people knew Bill Richardson was born to Mexican parents and spent the first 13 years of his life in Mexico?

Thanks watchdog media! At least you’ve done a bang up job informing everybody Mitt Romney is a Mormon and Tom Tancredo can’t possibly get elected.

One last point.

In order to become president Arnold Schwarzenegger, a putative conservative, would need a whole new constitutional amendment. Good luck with that Arnold. Bill Richardson and all the other invader babies, in contrast, needed only a handful of dictators in black robes to wave their magic liberal wands and subvert an existing amendment.

If Arnold wants an easier road to the presidency he should change parties. He’d be more at home on that side anyway.

(Be sure to click the image and read a self-described Latino political whore gloss over Richardson’s background.)

Hate Speech Pinheads Really Hate Speech

Here’s a wonderful example of a petty little ethnocentric pro-invasion mind at work. Note that it’s fueled by hypocrisy and denial. Since such minds have no rational arguments their impulses tend toward muffling those who oppose them.

‘Anchor babies’ is hate speech

Today’s North County Times readers can’t find an article that uses the infamous N-word, the Q-word (queer) or words like “homo” for homosexual.

What they find is the use of the words “anchor babies” in letters or Opinion pieces.

“Anchor babies” are words used by extremists to define babies born of illegal alien parents in the United States.

Most of these children are born to Mexican parents illegally in the United States. Shamefully, the anti-illegal alien cohort also applies the term to any Mexican-American regardless of the legality of one or both parents, grandparents or great-grandparents.

Oh my. "Anchor babies" is hate speech? How about your word "extremists" Raoul, you hypocrite? How about the racist, fascist, bigot, xenophobe, and nativist slurs so effortlessly tossed around by your colleagues in the media Raoul? How about the guero, pilgrim, gabacho, and gringo labels your La Raza carnales prefer Raoul? Shame on you and your myopic ethnocentrism. Of course we hate invaders. And you hate us for hating "your people". Pot, meet kettle.

Anchor baby is a perfectly descriptive phrase. It describes exactly what these babies represent. It reflects how their own parents feel about them. Which is of course why Raoul would like to see the phrase banned. That truth is embarassing, thus he wants it obscured. Do us all a favor Raoul – take your censorship, your politically correct N-word games, and shove them up your A-word. Nice try at hooking your victimology wagon to niggers and homos though. I’m sure they’ll appreciate your baggage.

Oh, did I violate your politically correct censorship laws? It’s ok. Take a deep breath and pull the panties out of your crack. They’re called "words". We use them to "communicate". And this endeavor is only infantilized and impeded if we play pig-latin-like games with every word that somebody like you might be offended by. I will not play those games. People like you obviously want to nullify the First Amendment by outlawing anything you don’t want to hear as "hate speech". The constitution describes the legitimate process, but you’ll find it much easier to have your pro-invasion dictators in black robes divine an emanation of a penumbra that enables you to call for state-backed violence against me simply for offending you.

Until then I’ll say anchor baby all I want, thanks. But just for giggles let’s brainstorm a few alternatives, shall we?

jackpot baby – Hmmm. Good second choice. Positive rather than negative connotations. And who can deny the literal windfall the proud alien parents reap? It starts with free health care (including delivery) and extends to free education, WIC, and the occasional free trip to your real homeland! Such a deal!

undocumented American babyHarry Reid’s personal favorite. They’re just Americans who lost their documents. And we all know how hard-working they are. Harry might even someday call them hard-working undocumented American worker babies with great family values. Note the near perfect reality-inversion. The parents are not Americans, never had any documents, and exhibit a way below average ability to stay employed, in school, and out of jail – so let’s claim exactly the opposite! Brilliant! No other country in the world awards citizenship to a baby just because of where they get dropped. Ssssh! Don’t ever mention that.

illegitimate baby – While technically correct illegitimate already has another meaning. And it sure is useful to be able to distinguish an illegitimate anchor baby (like Elivra’s bastard – oops, have the PC-police banned that perfectly descriptive word?) from a legitimate anchor baby (like Bill "call me Lopez" Richardson).

natural-born United States citizen baby – Raoul’s preference. Of course. Because then we wouldn’t be able to distinguish babies born to parents who are here legally from those born to parents here illegally. At least not without bogging down every conversation about immigration. Mission accomplished, right Raoul? No person is illegal, right Raoul? Words have no meaning, right Raoul?

invader baby – My preference. The 14th Amendment (whose plain language pro-invaders like Raoul love to misread) was not intended and has never been interpreted to grant citizenship to the babies of foreign diplomats or invaders. If you "migrate" here without "documentation" then you are by definition an invader. Raoul denies this reality. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Actually, this is precisely what Raoul and his friends want us not to talk about.

So answering Raoul hasn’t been a complete waste of time. By trying to shut down debate he actually inspired one, and in answering his absurd logic I’ve arrived at a deeper truth. From this point on I for one shall use the term invader baby – which is even more descriptive and correct than anchor baby, and thus is sure to piss off Raoul and his pro-invasion friends even more.

Gracias Raoul! You wouldn’t by any chance be an invader baby would you? Write some more of your thoughts about immigration, please.