Well, that didn’t take long.

When it became clear that Paul Ryan would be the Veep nominee this morning, the New York State Immigrant Action Center posted what might be the first race card play against Ryan as Veep nominee, accusing him of using the allegedly racist term “anchor babies”:

Paul Ryan has been tapped to be Mitt Romney’s running mate. Romney decided to pass on making a play for immigrant and Latino voters in favor of picking someone who is unlikely to appeal to these growig demographics.

At this town hall in Wisconsin, a man identifying himself as a retired marine makes a speech making bizarre and racist claims about Latino immigrants. Ryan responds to this rambling set of conspiracy theories with agreement. Ryan then deploys the most racist term used by anti-immigrant radicals. He refers to United States citizens born to Latino parents as “anchor babies” even though the 14th Amendment to the Constitution calls them “citizens”.

There is nothing racial much less racist about the term “anchor babies,” which has a long history of use.  The term applies regardless of race, and applies just as much to European or Asian women who come here for the purpose of giving birth on U.S. soil as it does to Mexicans.  This is just another attempt to term “racist” non-racial language as a way of shaping the political debate.

Putting aside these semantics, here is the video linked, and it is clear that when Ryan utters the words “anchor babies” he is reading back what a questioner had said, not adopting the phrase himself.  He then goes on to give a fairly moderate explanation that it is a constitutional issue as to the status of such babies, and that if the borders were enforced there would be no problem:

None of this is surprising. Just like with Palin, there will be a full-throttled attempt to demonize Ryan on the most personal terms, and the race card will be played frequently.

Update:  Reader Ken forwards this link to how the PC Police have convinced at least one dictionary to describe the term “anchor baby” as being “offensive.”

 
 0 
 
 0