Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Anchor Babies Showdown: Yoo v. Coulter
Last week, Ricochet con
tributor and podcast host John Yoo posted Trump No Conservative in Opposing Birthright Citizenship, making the case that Trump’s proposal to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The post generated hundreds of comments, both on and off the site, including this one from our old friend and avid Trump supporter Ann Coulter:
I know it's been a long time out of power, but it's utterly humiliating 4 John Yoo to claim that 150 yrs of S. Ct law supports anchor babies
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) August 21, 2015
We saw this exchange and promptly booked them for this week’s Ricochet Podcast on Friday 8/28 at 9AM PT/12PM ET. We’ll use a lot of the comments on John’s post as the basis for our debate. So Ricochet members, please join us live in the chat room (the podcast version will be out later that day). Not a member? That’s easy to fix — join today and be part of the great experiment.
It promises to be a Yuuuuge time for all.
Published in Domestic Policy, General, Immigration
Not after Podcast 101 anyway!
Yoo’s position is incomprehensible. How could a proposed amendment excising Anchor baby status from the 14th not be ratified? What would liberals say in opposition to it? That we need these immigrants here so we can get more Democrat votes and cheap labor? Of course they couldn’t say that, so what would they say? It would not end birthright citizenship; it would just eliminate that particular abuse of birthright citizenship. So they wouldn’t even be able to claim the amendment attacked birthright citizenship. Perhaps they would just be reduced to vague platitudes about “compassion”, which could be easily defeated by pointing out that compassion should go first to our citizens. Otherwise why not send welfare checks to all the poor citizens in Guatemala? Opposing such a Constitutional amendment would make as much political sense as opposing the Do Not Call list. It’s a sure winner. I have no idea why it’s not being pushed by Trump and every other Republican.
They can vote against that the same way they can vote for the Iran surrender.
Because they *want* the immigration. Sure they could. They won’t.
Racists. That what’s they would say. A non-trivial number of people would believe them.
That isn’t a reason not to try(I think there are other reasons not to try), but let us not fool ourselves into believing the democrats wouldn’t have a ready answer.
But the Dems couldn’t say the real reasons they’re against it!
Everything they did say could be met with examples like Kate Steinle and unemployed Americans. And pointing out that we can have all the legal immigration we want to have.
Yes, some people are morons, but they will be led by politicians who will be risking everything if they pushed it. Those like Maxine Waters might be able to get away with it, but I think there would be a very large number of Dems who would feel cornered.
The baby looks more like Coulter than like Yoo.
Did he have a handWas he involved in this?Since the father in the picture is Asian, I guess the baby could qualify as an anchor baby under JEB!’s definition.
My money’s on Yoo, although I disagree with his interpretation of the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship. He’s about as good as anyone on laying out legal reasoning in a rational, relatable manner and he’s apparently unflappable.
Ann will be entertaining but passion will work against her in the debate. It will still be a fine podcast and I can’t wait!
Obviously your #1 issue is abortion. Her #1 issue is immigration. You vote for who you want and let her vote for who she wants and we’ll see who wins. That’s what this whole election process is about. In the mean time stop with your belittling of those who don’t agree with you about what is the most important issue.
For the record, my #1 issue is Liberals that need to be kicked out of office (Liberals from all parties).
I strongly disagree with your assessment of Ann Coulter and your string of vituperative unsupported assertions. I am curious by what divination you arrived at this piercing insight to Coulter’s motivations. I have read most of her books and all of this thread and it seems pretty clear to me who is the fool.
I adamantly reassert my strident inculpations pertaining to the obstreperous and demagogic denunciations promulgated by Ann Coulter!
I see, and so you support a woman pushing a man who has consistently supported liberals and liberal causes, including single payer health care and protectionist trade.
This is the kind of principled activism that’s sure to “Make America Great Again!™”
Wow, and the podcast isn’t until Friday…sure we shouldn’t try to get this on pay-per-view?
Ann has lost it over Trump. Yoo is wrong. Lose-lose.
Poor Rob. First Mike Murphy and now Ann Coulter. Must we insult any friend of Rob’s who appears on a podcast?
Jon & Yeti,
I look forward to a spirited Constitutional Law Debate.
There that wasn’t so polite was it.
Regards,
Jim
I didn’t see this earlier. Before listening, you should have advised listeners to hide the kids. I wonder whether a listener warning was needed.
You should consider some kind of pay-per-view event involving Coulter and…Jorge Ramos. You might need a video feed to interest those who would insist on seeing the blood and gore.
I’m through the first page of the comments, and I think I’ve learned two things:
Apparently, BThompson doesn’t care for Ann Coulter.
BThompson has very thin skin.
Did I miss anything?
If you’re looking for a warm-up, you should listen to Coulter’s appearance on the Flagship podcast about three months ago. As I recall, she left Rob and Peter a little rattled.
Here you go, from 4 June 2015:
http://ricochet.com/podcasts/adios-america/
Or BThompson doesn’t appreciate the unwarranted piling on received on this thread while posting very sensible comments. Is fighting back against thinly-veiled trolling to be called thin-skinned?
Sorry (not sorry), I think the pushback is not only correct, but deserved.
BThompson et al,
I agree with nearly everything she writes inher books. I disagree with most of the positions she takes in speech. It’s odd.
I used to be a real Coulter fan, and I think that she changed. Fair enough, people do. I’ll listen to the podcast, and Claire recommends flagship 262 for similar.
But I expect to wind up where I usually do these days — thinking that Coulter is a net negative with a declining average.
So I come not to bury her, but that’s a shorter hike from here than praise.
I have a bone to pick about abortions on Sunday.
JEB! certainly has Yoo’s number. John better just step away from the fight right now, since he’s obviously just covering up with this flimsy “Constitution” argument.
yes!
This is the kind of debate that the Right needs to be having.
This is the kind of debate the WSJ folks seem to avoid.
Gotta say I’m looking forward to this one.
Awwww Com’on Claire,
Can’t I have any fun? I was hoping for maybe something like this.
ANN COLTER – THE IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
MEETS
JOHN YOO – THE IMMOVABLE OBJECT
IN A ROB LONG – RICOCHET PRODUCTION
“ANCHOR BABIES AWAY”
Get 10cents on this immediately. Tell him the advertising budget is unlimited I’ll even pay for coffee.
Regards,
Jim
John Eastman of Claremont might be another interesting guest for this topic.
https://www.claremont.org/page/center-for-political-philosophy-and-statesmanship/the-14th-amendment-immigration-and-citizenship/
This isn’t a debate that needs to happen. This is a stupid debate to have. It is totally unnecessary and has only political downside for the GOP.
If we secure the border and implement e-verify we will never need to worry about birthright citizenship.
We can also modify the law to end the chain immigration which gives preference to extended family.
There is no need to precipitate a constitutional crisis/debate which would take years to make it’s way through the courts and which will only be used as a cudgel by the left to call the GOP racists all during that time.
If securing the border, implementing e-verify and revising our immigration policies still didn’t solve the problem, then and only then should we be talking about birthright citizenship.
But even then, birthright citizenship is a relatively small portion of the problem. The majority of illegals here aren’t “anchored.” What’s more our current policy is to deport the whole family even if they are anchored. It always has been. There is nothing new about that policy and it is one that can be easily defended.
How long have we been talking about everify and securing the border?
If I had 10 million dollars I’d be rich…if I had 10 million dollars.
Well if you don’t secure the border and implement e-verify, ending birthright citizenship isn’t going to fix the problem. That’s what is especially silly about this whole debate, people pretend this is all caused by an erroneous reading of the 14th ammendment. That’s not what caused this problem and this “solution” won’t fix it.