Bobby Jindal confronts amnesty activists in Iowa
“If you want freedom, follow the laws”
Louisiana governor and 2016 presidential candidate Bobby Jindal was at the Iowa State Fair this weekend, and he addressed the topic of immigration, legal and illegal, from the fair’s famed soap box stage. The Des Moines Register reports:
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal kept a hard stance on his immigration policy and advocated for tighter border control and assimilation, despite heckling and protests from an immigration activism group at The Des Moines Register’s Political Soapbox at the Iowa State Fair Saturday.
“It’s time to secure the border for once and for all,” Jindal said. “If you want to come to our country, come legally, learn English.”
Throughout Jindal’s speech, he addressed a variety of issues, including defunding Planned Parenthood and instituting term limits for elected officials.
Protesters were in the audience shouting for “citizenship now” and chanting “We want freedom,” and Jindal responded directly, telling them “if you want freedom, follow the laws.”
More from the De Moines Register:
Jindal wants to repeal President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration police, which provides a work permit and exemption from deportation for some undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. before their 16th birthday. He also advocates for cultural assimilation, condemning terms like “African American” and “Asian American”, saying everyone should just be American.
“No one is being forced to come here in the first place,” Jindal said. “Immigration without assimilation, that’s invasion.”
Before Jindal stopped by the Republican Party of Iowa Booth, he was confronted by two activists from the Minnesota immigration group, spending roughly 15 minutes speaking with them. One of the activists mentioned Jindal’s parents, pointing out that they were immigrants who were hoping for better for themselves and for him, too.
“My parents came here legally. There’s a big difference,” Jindal said. “When you come here, roll up your sleeves and get to work.”
Watch Jindal’s whole speech:
Following his speech, the protesters confronted Jindal about his stance on assimilation and his statement condemning the notion of “hyphenated Americans.” Elizabeth Crisp reports:
Des Moines resident Vanessa Marcano-Kelly, a native of Venezuela, questioned Jindal’s objection to the use of “hyphenated American” descriptors — Jindal has said he believes people should be called Americans, rather than using terms like Asian-American, Indian-American or African-American. Marcano-Kelly told him she thinks diversity enhances the country and said she took offense to remarks he made in his speech.
“I don’t believe anybody is automatically entitled to come here to our country and be Americans. That’s a privilege,” Jindal responded. “We want people who want to be Americans, who want to assimilate.”
Marcano-Kelly and two others attempted to pull sway by noting Jindal’s family’s immigration story, but he repeatedly stressed that his parents came to the United States legally. Jindal’s father, an engineer, qualified for a green card under a 1965 law for people with “exceptional ability in the sciences or arts,” and Jindal’s mother was then able to get a spouse green card. Jindal was born a U.S. citizen a few months later.
After the lengthy back-and-forth with the immigration advocates, Jindal shook each of their hands, telling them, “We’ll agree to disagree and that’s OK. … I appreciate your passion.”
It’s difficult not to draw comparisons between Jindal’s passion, dignity, and grace when discussing lawful immigration and assimilation and other candidates who believe illegal immigration is an “act of love” or who speak in condescending platitudes designed to obscure the issue.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
…Jindal responded directly, telling them “if you want freedom, follow the laws.”
I don’t think he understands.
They want freedom *from* the laws.
Yes, they are following obama’s lead.
…freedom from U.S. laws.
Following the lead of the current administration they simply want freedom from the laws they don’t like. And this administration facilitates them by selectively not enforcing them. Now people’s aim is word policing to make sure those ignoring the law are well protected.
Dislocation and corruption in America. Protection and corruption abroad. What, exactly, is the motive of illegal immigration activists, and of excessive immigration generally?
So, Gov. Jindal is an anchor baby.
Just a note, not a big comment.
Hardly. Unless you want to broaden your definition of anchor baby to include any child born to parents NOT born in the U.S.
Following his words, it’s clear his parents, 1) complied with the law when immigrating and 2) intended to stay and make a life for themselves.
Nothing about that situation applies to the scenarios that create “anchor babies.”
Nope. I’m using the definition now in play.
He was born to temporary green-card holders, and became a U.S. citizen solely by the accident of his being born here.
You may not like it, but thems the facts. Neither of the two things you mention are relevant. Are they?
Or are you suggesting we need to make an anchor baby exception for people here legally, but temporarily?
Good grief. Don’t confuse two circumstances. Most people are NOT suggesting that all “natural born” people are by definition “anchor babies” if their parents are not natural born, also.
The key term is “anchor”, and most who favor a well controlled LEGAL immigration system only apply it to those who use childbirth as the means to “anchor” themselves and bypass the usual order. Even the Brits distinguish this situation by the simple and basic use of the term “settled” to describe the family situation.
Unless reported otherwise, there is no evidence the Jindal family intended to use birth on U.S. soil as a means to alter their efforts to settle and assimilate. No “achoring”, in other words.
A bigger discussion about “birthright” citizenship need not be coupled to the term “anchor.”
There is no such thing.
You’re kicking against the pricks here, dude.
Jindal’s birth DID, in fact, “anchor” his family. You can’t deny that. (Or you CAN, but it would be delusional.)
“Unless reported otherwise, there is no evidence the Jindal family intended to use birth on U.S. soil as a means to alter their efforts to settle and assimilate.”
I read the post. There’s NOTHING in it that suggests the senior Jindals intended to stay here. You MAY have something to say otherwise, but it isn’t here.
PLUS their “intent” is not relevant, again. They DID get “anchored” here via the birth of their son. NOBODY I’ve heard wants to make the issue hinge on “intent”, because that’s a rabbit hole of Grand Canyon dimensions.
AND you try to paint me as being against legal immigrant citizens giving birth to citizens. That’s just bogus.
You can infer at your will. I’ve never made any statement about your intents.
Funny how you suggest I cannot find evidence when that applies to you as well. Referring only to this post and to anything so far I have read, there is no evidence the Jindal family USED his birth or any other birth to anchor them in the U.S. Perhaps I am too generous in accepting his declaration they followed all aspects of the law and did not simply use the “anchoring” as the means to stay. If not true, where is all of the MSM words disproving it? Hard to imagine they would give him a pass on such a hot button issue.
Miffed at how you cannot distinguish between birthright citizenship and the more narrowed circumstance people call anchoring. By your definition, had the Jindal’s returned to India and Bobby never come back to settle in the U.S., he would still be an anchored baby. Just being here on a green card and having a child is in no way the same as crossing (without any visa or green card) to deliberately birth the child on U.S. soil, returning or not. Where’s the logic?
No, it didn’t. They were already anchored.
As you yourself say, their intent doesn’t matter. What matters is that they were able to stay, because they had green cards. Those cards were their anchors.
The logic is self-evident, and you can’t address it. You’ve proven that by avoiding the FACT that the baby Jindal anchored the family in the U.S. (at their discretion).
You want to try to differentiate “birthright citizenship” and “anchor babies”. The latter cannot exist without the former, and it is the whole ambit of “birthright citizenship” that’s now under debate.
I think “birthright citizenship” is and was a stupid idea. It leads inexorably to “anchor babies” who are that REGARDLESS of a parent’s intent, as here with Jindal.
Seriously, what on earth are you talking about? His parents came here legally, then followed the legal process for becoming citizens of the United States.
What on earth does that have to do with breaking the law to enter the country?
Jindal doesn’t fit the definition of an “anchor baby”. You don’t know what you are talking about Ragspierre.
And you’re a bigot. America is worse because of people like you.
Key words = leads…to . From your post – “I think ‘birthright citizenship’ is and was a stupid idea. It leads inexorably to ‘anchor babies’ who are that REGARDLESS of a parent’s intent, as here with Jindal.”
The two are not exactly the same, but the current right (birthright) leads to some anchor babies. No dispute on my part. And the remedy involves a much larger discussion about things. For example, if the only way to be “born” a citizen is to have 2 (or 1) citizen parent(s), the discussion then becomes the expansion of the immigration bureaucracy to deal with a massive expansion of applications of children born here but not meeting the requirements for automatic citizenship. A legitimate discussion and one this country needs to have.
But the fact remains that there is no evidence that Bobby Jindal was his parents “anchor.” You are correct that there is no explicit evidence he was not. I’m simply relying on his words and the lack of any disputation to say he is a citizen by the current definition of birthright and was not an anchor. Not sure why your default is that EVERY baby born on this soil to parents in any part of the LEGAL immigration process is by definition an anchor. Stretching the analogy – I can possess and anchor on my boat. But if I am not moored using it, I am technically NOT anchored. For you it seems that simply possessing the anchor is equivalent to using it. For me the distinction is vital because I don’t want to discourage people who follow the law, but only those who do not. To have an anchor baby SHOULD be a negative and should eventually be addressed by law, whether amending the Constitution is required or not. To have a child while conducting your life lawfully on American soil isn’t the same and shouldn’t be impacted.
And I’ll flip this on you – can you PROVE that Bobby was USED by the Jindals in way that “anchored the family in the U.S. (at their discretion),” for certain? In the real world you can only be anchored when USING an anchor.
Again, for the stupid and hard of reading…
It DOESN’T MATTER what the parental intent was…or even the USE OF…an anchor baby.
The FACT of a anchor baby is what is BOTH apparent here, and definitionally OBVIOUS.
Again, it does NOT matter in the law. It gives the parents the TOTAL option to use that anchor or not, and the FLUCKING government of the U.S. has jack-shit to say about it.
Gawd, you people are something…
“His parents came here legally, then followed the legal process for becoming citizens of the United States.”
Yes, I guess. There’s nothing that says that in root post. But they didn’t have to. Baby Jindal had anchored the family here. See? LOL?
“What on earth does that have to do with breaking the law to enter the country?”
Nothing. But a lot of anchor babies are born here to people in the country legally but temporarily. Those people THEN have the total RIGHT to stay here because they have that “anchor”, and it’s UP TO THEM. Not us. See? LOL?
You guess? No, Ragspierre, that is the truth.
Link to it, because you won’t find it in the root post anywhere.
Oh, and SUCK me, honey, and your “bigot” bullshit.
Did Jindal’s birth “anchor” his family here? Yes or no.
They were not here temporarily. They needed no anchor. They could have stayed as long as they liked, even if they were childless. Thus their baby did not serve as one.
Green cards are not temporary. His parents were legal permanent residents. They didn’t need a baby to function as an anchor keeping them here.
His parents were definitely here legally when he was born; but it’s unlikely they were permanent residents at that time. Unless the procedures were more streamlined in the early 1970s, it takes time to get permanent residency, and except if a Consular visa is issued by a U.S. Department of State consulate abroad, you first come to the US on a temporary visa, and then apply for the ‘green cards.’
When Jindal’s parents arrived in the US his mother was six months pregnant. Unless their applications were fast tracked for some unknown reason, it probably took a year or two to finalize the paperwork.
And though Jindal wasn’t an anchor baby, he was a docking rope baby. He wouldn’t have been born in the US if not for a money incentive provided by Louisiana tax-payers.
His mother had been accepted for a teaching-study scholarship at LSU, but when she found out she was pregnant, she and her husband informed the school they planned to stay in India. It wasn’t until after LSU offered to pull some strings, and guarantee her birth coverage through the university health plan, plus one month paid maternity leave, that they agreed to come to the USA.
Without that birth-perk, Baby Piyush wouldn’t have been born here.
There was no backlog in the issue of green cards back then, and no such thing as “provisional” green cards; they were issued almost immediately upon application, and they were permanent. By the time Piyush was born they both had their green card status.
How is the signing incentive relevant? The university wanted her to come, so they gave her an incentive. What’s wrong with that? And how does affect his campaign’s legitimacy?
“There was no backlog in the issue of green cards back then..”
Yes and no. It was easier in the early 1970s to enter the US, but there were still Hemispheric total visa restrictions, including a 20,000 country ceiling for India. And for permanent residence visas back then you didn’t just waltz into a US Embassy and get one as easily as dropping a quarter into a vending machine. A common way to acquire a green card was first to enter the US with time-limited student visa, and then apply for permanent status.
But it’s a moot point concerning Jindal’s parents. You’re correct: when baby Piyush was born they had green card status. That’s because his father had received a P1-3 permanent resident visa, covering him and his wife, before they left India. He had entered a US immigration program then in effect, to recruit those with needed occupational skills, in science and engineering, etc.
The maternity bonus is relevant for historical perspective on neeBobby’s political perspective. I think it’s great that the university aided his mother like that; his parents are exactly the kind of smart, educated, hard-working people we want to bring here as future citizens. But Bobby recently tried to gut LSUs budget so severely the university took out ads in local newspapers saying he was going to bankrupt them – a hell of a thank-you to the institution that insured he was born in the USA.
So you think he should mismanage the taxpayers’ money out of some misplaced sense of gratitude for a favor done to his family?! There’s a word for that: corruption. LSU, like almost every university in the country, has been squandering money like there’s an infinite supply, because from their POV there pretty much has been. That’s why the cost of a tertiary education has been skyrocketing, while the value has been plummeting; what Glenn Reynolds has been calling the higher education bubble. Jindal’s duty to the taxpayer includes reining in this money sink, and he’s doing it despite the squawking.
“So you think he should mismanage the taxpayers’ money out of some misplaced sense of gratitude for a favor done to his family?!”
Well he’s doing it for his mother now, slashing government jobs left and right, but not hers , or her state agency’s budget which seems to be rising.
You think that’s fair?
I think he should be a real leader and not a doctrinaire ideologue, which seems to be the case.
Don’t you think there’s something ‘off kilter’ about him? A Rhodes scholar who believes literally in Devils and exorcism? And believes in Intelligent Design? You think someone with those beliefs has a strong enough grip on reality to be President? I thought you were smarter than that, but maybe not.
I’m out. This is like the Trumpette blower threads.
I’ll be low for the rest of the day, realizing that some of the posters here are incapable of rational thought.
You claim others are engaging irrational thought in all the threads you look at. Perhaps, iot is not the “others” you should be looking at.
Anchor baby is a pejorative term for a child born in the U.S. to an illegal immigrant mother to the United States.
Which is as I understood anchor baby meaning for many years.
Yah, but Mouse, you’re an idiot. You’re known for it.
“The term is also often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States to refer to children of illegal immigrants, but may be used for the child of any immigrant.”
And you can’t read, or honestly report what you DID read.
Only by those seeking to confuse the issue. Permanent residents are already anchored; having a baby doesn’t help them.
Very good speech — Very good man
Milhouse is correct about the green card status.
I was mistaken, having conflated “green card” with temporary work visas.
So I learned something new!
Thank you. We seem to agree on about 90% of all topics that come up on this blog, so it’s gratifying when we find another area of agreement.