Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Saturday Night Card Game (The first race card has been played against Paul Ryan)

Saturday Night Card Game (The first race card has been played against Paul Ryan)

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.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


There are Irish, Russian, Croate, etc. anchor babies.

This is pure CBS…Collectivist Bull SPIT.

    Sometimes their extortion tactics are easier to expose than others. This one should really be beneath their dignity. It doesn’t even require special knowledge or a long memory to demonstrate that their patently false statement arises from a narrow advocacy.

      barbara in reply to n.n. | August 11, 2012 at 7:45 pm

      “This one should really be beneath their dignity.”

      Silly n.n. Don’t you know these clowns have no dignity to be beneath of?

    There are even Australia, Canadian & British “anchor babies” … just sayin’.

There are two things that the democrats cannot face, comprehend or practice.

First is the truth… Like a garlic clove to a vampire.

Second is personal responsibility… Like providing for yourself rather than sucking off the success of others.

Other than that, I cannot find anything positive about liberals..

Ryan fully understands many complex issues with our nation and rampant illegals are undermining base wages and stealing the American Dream from our nations children.

As I stated earlier today immigration policy is a key element of restoring America to robust long-term economic prosperity.

A nation is a legal construct. The class of Natural born citizenship should be conferred upon a newborn by the legal status of their parents. That is to say, both parents should be American citizens, natural or naturalized.

Midwest Rhino | August 11, 2012 at 7:17 pm

I’m told by some folks from Mexico, that many middle class Mexicans like to have their “anchor baby” here, even though they’ll live in Mexico. Besides the better health care, there is the advantage that this Mexican kid can now claim US benefits for life, at any time he chooses, perhaps even while living in Mexico.

It is an absurd situation, but not a campaign issue, as far as I can tell. But now Romney/Ryan will have to answer that question, with the usual racist overtones.

Anchor babies, anchor babies, anchor babies! Ooops, I must be going to the fourth level of hell or something now. By the way, I wish these folks would quit saying dog whisles, Obama is having a heck of a time maintaining his dog free diet. Notice, they are attempting to say that illegal is another dog whistle. MiniTru is alive and well.

Note that the link states the term “anchor baby” was given its pejorative meaning in November 2011. The video of Ryan at the Town Hall is dated April 2011. So, whether or not the term is “acceptable” by the left today, it was the norm in April 2011, before the PC crowd altered its meaning.

[…] another term of Obama — not without some serious problems in our future.….and without delay, here come the accusations of racism.Oh yeah, the Democrats are now scared to death and they are firing up the smear machine. This is […]

I find few things more racist than the idea that whites can’t have anchor babies. Next thing you know Lief Ericson will be declared a Kenyan.

How can we tell Republicans or conservatives are telling racist lies? Their lips are moving.

How do we know that Republicans or conservatives are using code for racists terms? Their lips are moving.

How do we know that Republicans or conservative TEA party patriots are planning violence? Their lips are moving.

I think three examples are enough, y’all can see the pattern from here. The progressive-socialist-marxist-Democrats are incapable of giving any credit to the Right. For too long the Right has given credit to the leftist that they too want what is best for the country. We have been wrong. When President Barack Hussein 0bama wants to radically transform this country, we should assume the worst.

Bear with me. Social conservatives, please read this whole comment before going ballistic.

Gender card: At a leftist site, from which, by vigilantly keeping a tight rein on my temper, I have not been not been banned, breathlessly announced that Ryan co-sponsored the so-called Sanctity of Human Life Act that supposedly declares that human life begins at fertilization.

As a libertarian, I’m not happy about that. My initial enthusiasm about Ryan will have to be followed by some due diligence. (No only are reproductive issues enormously divisive, but the more innocuous and self-evidently reasonable the title of a bill is, the more skepticism is called for.)

But that’s not the point I’m driving at.

One of that lefty site’s few remaining conservatives ahem claimed that Ryan deserves credit for taking the looming fiscal disaster out from under the rug where polticians keep trying to sweep it.

The whole Leftist flash mob at the site dropped the War on Women ranting and started dumping on Ryan’s fiscal proposals.

IMO that reaction is significant, but make of it what you will. I report, you deride.

    Ragspierre in reply to gs. | August 11, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    “Sanctity of Human Life Act that supposedly declares that human life begins at fertilization.

    As a libertarian, I’m not happy about that.”

    I don’t understand that. As a matter of law, it has to begin at some point. So… What’s the rumpus? Why not at fertilization? What other, better, time? Because at fertilization, you are dealing with a member of the human family.

      It’s the only objective standard. A human life develops from conception to grave. Outside that range is a matter for personal reflection, philosophical debate, and can only be determined by articles of faith.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to gs. | August 11, 2012 at 9:24 pm

    “IMO that reaction is significant, but make of it what you will.”

    I’m not sure of your point. What do you make of it? (Not an attack, genuine question).

      I’m not sure of your point. What do you make of it?

      I consider that they can’t help telegraphing what they fear. I consider that they routinely try to frame the ground rules of discussion so as to delegitimize opposing positions: up to and including redefining and banning words.

      a. That suggests to me that they really fear economic truth telling: not just about the unemployment rate, but the overall situation. It suggests to me that they understand that Obama bears primary responsibility for the mess. They understand that Obama is catastrophically vulnerable if called out effectively.

      b. IMHO Leftist strategists know the country is deeply uneasy about the situation, and they do not, yet, want such uneasiness to be articulated. They intend to confront the looming crisis at a time and place, and with scapegoats, of their choosing. They most definitely do not want the confrontation to happen before the election; maybe they even want to defer it to a later administration like Christina Kirchner’s Elizabeth Warren’s.

      2. Paragraph (a) is what I think about the leftists on the site I alluded to; (b) is what I suspect about the bigger picture.

      You’re a savvy guy, Henry. What do you think?

        Henry Hawkins in reply to gs. | August 11, 2012 at 10:26 pm

        Well, that’s what I thought you meant, but the expectation you might get drubbed for the post threw me off. I agree with every bit of that.

        There’s a semi-frequent poster here at LI whose name I cannot recall at the moment, except that the word liberal is in it, and he’s a pretty levelheaded guy ‘for a lib’. I have a friend – he has a small business in the office suite next to mine – who is like that too, a liberal, but not the shrieking, my way or the highway sort. He admitted to me after the ‘Romney killed my wife’ Obama ad that he is increasingly embarrassed by the Obama adminstration and campaign team. He admits a growing resentment that Obama is becoming nearly impossible to defend, that when someone like me complains about the latest Obama trick (such as his EO negating Senate approval of executive appts), he basically cannot argue it with me.

        I mention this because I suspect my liberal neighbor cannot be the only Democrat/liberal feeling the same way. I guess it’s like Republicans felt during the tail end of the drawn out Watergate scandal. At some point a reasonable supporter has to admit, “you’re right, my guy’s a crook.” I hope your experience undercover at the leftist blog is seeing a bit of that, and if so, that their cognitive dissonance concerning their own candidate is growing. I’m sure there’s a hefty percentage on the left whose intellectual apparatus is incapable of embarrassment, who cannot recognize the elements that ought to provoke embarrassment.

        Me savvy? Thanks, but I think the technical term is “as full of sh*t as a Christmas turkey.”

        Thanks for responding, btw.

          1. I hope your experience undercover at the leftist blog is seeing a bit of that, and if so, that their cognitive dissonance concerning their own candidate is growing. I’m sure there’s a hefty percentage on the left whose intellectual apparatus is incapable of embarrassment, who cannot recognize the elements that ought to provoke embarrassment.

          Unfortunately, that bunch are poster children for P.J. O’Rourke’s saying that, iirc, there’s no getting through to the highly perceptive.

          2. I mention this because I suspect my liberal neighbor cannot be the only Democrat/liberal feeling the same way.

          The term prefrence cascade comes to mind. Not only does the Left fear conservative common sense, but maybe they fear that their doubters will communicate with each other.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 12, 2012 at 10:45 am

          Such a cascade is welcomed, lol.

          I have also wondered what would happen if polling indicated that Obama was definitely going down in November, would the left-biased media begin dumping on Obama in hopes of reestablishing the credibility they lost in holding Obama’s umbrella these past four years?

          Imagine a preference cascade on the left coupled with a cynical media backlash against a nose-diving Obama…..

          Need to go smoke a cigarette now.

The term “anchor baby” is indeed offensive, or should be… to American citizens and legal residents, as well as nations where conditions engender this desperate outcome. A selective rule of law or a clear manipulation of intent only serves to advance corruption in America and the home nations where these people originated.

What came first, PC or progressive corruption?

BannedbytheGuardian | August 11, 2012 at 8:40 pm

An ‘anchor baby ‘ is not a given in many countries.

On the upside you get the Bobby Jindals . On the downside you could get Uncle Obongo procreating & more Obama relatives.

It could be restricted to certain visa holders – eg non tourists quite easily.

I know one who was born whilst his parents were post PHD science interns at a major research facility. He left at 2 but was able to be a dual citizen by a new bilateral agreement just before he would have had to decide..

He largely forgot about it until he was headhunted by a US police dept for specialist

skills. They were very surprised & pleased that he was able to tick American citizen.

You’ve got to try & filter out the stupid genes !

I’m basically an anchor husband.

Big deal!

    I’m basically an anchor husband.

    That’s interesting, Luke-san.

    If you don’t mind saying & our host allows the digression (after all, there is chitchat during card games), what is your legal status wrt Japan?

      LukeHandCool in reply to gs. | August 11, 2012 at 9:47 pm

      We’re over here now and my wife is a resident alien with a green card.

      Whenever we’re living in Japan, I’m on a spouse visa.

      I always tell her she married me so she could live in Southern California … that she trapped me … because I was innocent and naive (and never sober) the two years we knew each other before getting married.

      She complains that I was the one who trapped her and that I should have explained about my social phobia (she enjoys socializing).

      I tell her that I wanted to, but I didn’t know how to explain it in Japanese.

      I always laugh when my social phobia avoidance techniques drive her crazy.

      When the latch broke off our front metal gate, I locked it with one of those bicycle locks that looks like a slinky, winding it around the gate and the adjoining fence.

      I don’t want neighbors or anybody else knocking on my door.

      She came home from shopping, and as I watched from the upstairs bedroom window, as she unwound it and it went flying and clanging against the gate, I couldn’t stop laughing as she struggled with it while growling,

      “So … cial … pho … bic … freak!!”

      That’s “love” in any language.

        I wish you and your wife many more years of happiness together.

        Your post is consistent with my suspicion that Japan is, at best, reluctant to grant you full citizenship.

          LukeHandCool in reply to gs. | August 11, 2012 at 10:11 pm

          Yep. My damn reputation!

          That’s another reason I admire Japan. They have standards.

          beloved2 in reply to gs. | August 12, 2012 at 6:30 pm

          No suspicion necessary. White babies born to white parents anywhere in Japan cannot be citizens. My former roommate’s parents were New Zealanders who birthed all eight children in Japan and now all the grandbabies are second generation born in Japan and all have to have New Zealand passports with three year visas. In 20 years my roommate had only lived in New Zealand a total of 2 years so culturally and linguistically, she was Japanese ( her term was EGG-meaning white on outside and yellow on inside). And the government refuses to let their Japanese orphans be adopted outside the islands. If you want to call someone raaacist, might be Japanese but I love them and for the rest of my life, they will still call me “gaijin”.

Henry Hawkins | August 11, 2012 at 9:09 pm

A bit O/T….

Anyone heard the radio ad promoting SK Energy Drink? (SK = Street King). It begins with a nerdy white voice introducing himself as 50 cent (rapper) and lamenting how he has no energy and is a wimp to the ladies, that sort of thing, and he even sounds like a –ugh!- white boy, a big negative. Then you hear slurping noises as SK Energy Drink is imbibed, his voice immediately becomes the actual voice of 50 cent, and all is well – no more white boy.

I was not offended in the least, mostly because it was so stupid and so poorly done, but can you imagine the howlingly outrageous outrage if a product was sold on the positively advanced feature that it made you less like a black man? Oy….

I heard that this Ryan guy ties babies to a rope and throws them over the side of his boat to keep it in place while he shoots baby birds with a big gun.

These racist accusations have become nothing more than figurative lynchings. And, we have what amounts to a “Grand Wizard” in the WH.

I referred to someone as a Jew once and an 18 year old called me out in front of a group, shocked, shocked that I would insult someone that way who was, um, Jewish.

    “Jew” used to be considered offensive, a long time ago; the acceptable locution was “Jewish person”. I have no idea why, any more than I understand why one is supposed to say “Chinese person” but not “Chinaman”. But nowadays “Jew” only offensive if said in a harsh and hostile tone.

Democrats…..Liars gotta lie! The only people who really believe the race card are those who already believe they are victims.

Henry Hawkins | August 11, 2012 at 10:06 pm

I’m sure any politician or political group would much prefer to win favor on the merits of their records, policies, and ideology, so I look at all the demagoguery as essentially a surrender by opposition who has nothing to present but ad hominem attacks empty of substance and devoid of style.

As we learned this past week when even tried and true liberal demagogues were calling foul on the Obama ‘Romney killed my wife’ ad, there is a limit to the ugliness the American people will tolerate. If leading liberals are embarrassed by Team Obama ads, how many common citizens must have been offended? We don’t hear of them because 90% of the media refuses to air an Obama negative – but that doesn’t mean those citizens are unaware of their own disgust. That ad and the ‘you didn’t build that’ gaffe were like gold to the Romney team.

I favor mutuality in the right to travel. It is a right that the citizens of one state have to enter, temporarily or permanently, any other state in the union. The open borders crowd want only one way travel, and a vigorously racist displacement policy.

I created a placeholder website — — to posit the notion that I could get some of my desired mutuality and some Mexican nationals could get their US citizenship by way of a petition for statehood. Change the topic to whether and under what conditions the US Congress should accept a statehood petition by the now-Mexican citizens of the 6 northernmost Mexican states that border the US.

Let the La Raza racists scream that a demand for mutuality in the right to travel to the 6 northernmost Mexican states is racist?

I find that it’s fairly easy to counter all kinds of nasty pre-impression using this link:

The nice thing about Ryan is that there are plenty more of them.

[…] extreme left did NOT see this coming is the fact they immediately played the race card, as noted by Professor Jacobson/Legal Insurrection.It shows that the “granny of the cliff” meme is such a loser that this nasty bit of […]

Illegal is not a race.

Just think folks, it only goes downhill from here. Look at the bright side — maybe the Demonrats will go so far in their hysterical diatribes that it will finally wake up the vast middle ground to what a bunch of radical, extremist nuts they really are.