Michael Anton, author of the "Flight 93 Election" piece, recently wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post about why birthright citizenship should abolished. It aroused the usual hysteria, but not just from liberals.
Anton just responded. He writes:
I did not expect self-described “conservatives” to be just as hysterical as the Left, and to use precisely the same terms. “Nativist.” “Xenophobe.” “Bigot.” “Racist.” “White nationalist.” “White supremacist.”
One point I’ve been making for a while is that one faction of “conservatism”—let’s call it the anti-Trump wing, although the phenomenon long predates Trump—sounds and acts with every passing year more like a “conservative” subdivision of the Left. Like the Left, they don’t want to debate; they want to call those they disagree with evil. For what are those epithets supposed to mean, if not “evil”?
Whether or not to have birthright citizenship for the children of noncitizens is one such fundamentally political question. But like so many other political questions, this one is ruled out of bounds by scholars, lawyers, experts, pundits, and professional moralists.
The American people did not willingly, knowingly, or politically adopt birthright citizenship. They were maneuvered into it by the Left and by the Left-allied judiciary. They’ve never debated it or voted on it. They’ve simply been told that it’s required by the Constitution.
[Birthright citizenship: A Reponse To My Critics, Claremont Review of Books, July 22, 2018]
The full thing is worth reading. But VDARE.com has been hammering away on this issue for many years now.
See:
Contra what the Drive-By Media would have you believe, the abolition of birthright citizenship isn't a new issue. It was imposed on this country by fraud and its removal is common sense. Glad to see the mainstream conservative debate is catching up to VDARE.com.
