The Dehumanizing Term "Anchor Baby" Part of a Reactionary Assault on American Values

I've come to expect figures like William Gheen of ALIPAC to completely strip an entire subset of people from their humanity with their words.  It becomes grating to my ears when an elected official does so.  Even more so when they dehumanize the very people they were elected to represent. 

Watch the video above to see Republican incumbent Virgil Goode (VA-5th District) debate Democrat challenger Tom Perriello on the "anchor baby situation".  I've transcribed a great deal of the video below.

There is so much wrong with what Goode says, but I'm going to try and cut to the heart of it.  

Five times he uses the term "anchor baby" with dehumanizing phrases like "say no to the anchor baby".  An "anchor baby", for those of you that don't know, is a child born of migrants in the U.S. who, through the 14 amendment of the U.S. constitution, is automatically a U.S. citizen.

Nativists try to make this seem like an abomination, but challenging this is an afront to the very concept of U.S. citizenship.  To oppose it, is the difference between the philosophical concepts of "jus soli" and "jus sanguinis", or the "the right of soil" vs. "the right of blood". 

Virgil Goode is essentially arguing for "the right of blood" an antiquated concept whereby nationality is not determined by place of birth, but by ancestry.  It's the equivalent of a feudal philosophy whereby your privileges are passed onto you by your parents.  Not only does it undercut a central tenet of U.S. citizenship, but it also undercuts the idea that everyone should be born equal.

I go into this explanation, because I don't think people realize what a radical affront to the United States people like Virgil Goode are.  These are not people on the lunatic fringe.  H.R. 1940 or the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007" claims 104 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives (that's out of 435 for those that are counting). 

Congressman like Virgil Goode like to claim that they are for enforcing the laws that are on the books, but in reality they are in favor of a radical re-ordering of judicial philosophy of the United States as we know it.  This nativist movement, led by members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, is on par, perhaps even surpassing, the Know Nothing movement of mid 19th-century.  People don't see the extent to which this movement has polluted the U.S. government because these politicians still have D's or R's next to their name.  If decent people don't rise-up against this movement the United States will be gone as they know it.

What is most disgraceful about congresmman like Virgil Goode is that when they rail against anchor babies, they are dehumanizing the very people that they were elected to represent.  Even if they succeed in the radical reordoring of the concept of U.S. citizenship and the U.S. constitution, they cannot very well retroactively deny citizenship to the "anchor babies" that were already born in the U.S.  Like it or not they are here to stay.  Like it or not, congressman is elected to represent those "anchor babies".

He uses the term "anchor baby" because he doesn't want his constituents to know that when he says things like:

They cost us money...They cost taxpayers. They cost our government.  The cost local government.  They cost the state...A huge cost.  I laid out the cost on food stamps.  I laid out the cost on [Supplemental Security Income].  I laid out how they get free Medicaid.

Virgil Good - R-VA-5th District (3 September 2003)

Congressman Virgil Goode doesn't want you to know that he's talking about U.S. citizens here.  He's complaining about how much it costs to feed, clothe, treat, house, and educate U.S. citizens.  You see unauthorized migrants are inelligible for much of these public programs so nativists need another scapegoat to make it seem like this is a bigger economic problem than it really is.  So they pick on the children of unauthorized migrants, which are U.S. citizens.