"ANCHOR BABIES" - A NEW TERM FOR BIGOTS

In the last few months, the term "anchor baby" has taken on a certain cache with anti-immigrant folks like Ms. Michele Malkin and Mr. Lou Dobbs.  The term refers to the children of immigrants who are conferred citizenship by virtue of their birth in this country. Some would limit the use to the children of illegal aliens, while many extend it to children of those on work and tourist visas. Others argue that anyone born in the US to parents on work, student, tourist visas, etc. would be an "anchor baby".

I think it's fair to call it like it is - calling someone an "anchor baby" is a form of hate speech. The term is used in an effort to dehumanize a whole class of American citizens. By stigmatizing the American children of immigrants, these bigots seek to turn millions of Americans in to second class citizens. There have been many other societies in the past which tried to de-legitimized the children of immigrants. I know because I've filed asylum cases for people with horrific stories involving their membership in a persecuted group of this sort.

America has always had better instincts. Immigrants have succeeded in this country more than any other because we focus as a country on welcoming immigrants and making them in to new Americans, not just barely tolerated foreigners. Their children are not second class citizens and just as American as the children of those who trace their roots to Plymouth Rock.

Because I believe the term is offensive and demeaning, I intend to delete posts that use it in a derogatory way). If people want to discuss the term itself and how it is being used in hate speech, I'd consider that to be appropriate. Some of the anti-immigrant folks out there are no doubt going to accuse me of being a censor. And so be it. They can use the term on your own blogs (and don't seem to have any hesitancy to do so, of course).

Comments

[Greg Siskind]

Amb - Without getting in to the question of racism (and I said the specific terminology had racist overtones without regard to the underlying question of whether birthright citizenship is smart or not), you won't garner a lot of sympathy on this site by saying you are married to an immigrant and therefore you're immune from having your motives questioned. You're likely to get the "Roy" label on that one and if you don't know what that means, you're likely to hear it soon.

[amb]

I think it is only fair not to give automatic citizenship to those born to illegal immigrants or those who are not permanent residents. That does not make me anti-immigrant or racist especially since my own children are the children of a LEGAL permanent resident who immigrated LEGALLY to become a US resident and later a citizen. If I were to visit Japan and just happened to give birth while on vacation, my child would have US citizenship. A person on vacation or in the US for school is not here to be a permanent resident, thus their children are the citizens of the parent's country not the US since their legal intention is not to stay here. IT IS NOT RACIST!!!! IMMIGRANTS are for HR 1940.

[TX]

JoeF,

Do you even get the point I was trying to make? That comment was not intended for you but just for one individual on this board that cannot accept any kind of change, so please read the entire comment before responding.

[paskal]

Life means change. Embracing change means embracing life. Embracing life means embracing change.

i like the way that was put.
i agree.....

[JoeF]

"read up on what the demographics changes in CA are going to be 25 years from now, its not the immigration, but the birth rate of the current immigrants that will change the landscape"

Yeah, and?
The "landscape" always changes, everywhere. It actually is a good thing.
It is only bad for bigoted people who abhor change. Life means change. Embracing change means embracing life. Embracing life means embracing change.

[Robin Hood]

20 bucks says Roy and his proxy have broken some law in their lives.... and they got away with it. Of course, like the Congressman in the DC madam scandal, they said they were sorry.

[Dream Act guy]

I think the failed CIR bill was a pyrrhic victory for the anti-immigrant side. A much better CIR bill will pass sooner or later because if the Republicans don't watch out, Latinos will completely turn against them in upcoming elections. Its only a matter of time.

For now, though, the piecemeal strategy is working just fine. Agjobs and DREAM is set to come up soon, and I am hoping for nursing and H1B visa (Durbin backed) amendments too.

[paskal]

If being anonnymous facilitates an honest debate so be it.
i think the problem with Roy, that you are seing here, is that he disagreed and swore not to post- then continues to do so under different handles. And it's obvious because his arguments are well known to all here. Roy has his own thoughts, and running away does not help. Wish everyone could learn something from each other- if nothing else get familiar with an opposing perspective. USC just made a good point. Roy made a couple too (and some disingenious ones). I don't agree with a lot of his views, but they are his- i'm ready to listen and debate. And he is welcome to go back to using his old name/handle.

[Newsflash]

"Roy, honestly, I don't think you need a blog. I think you need a therapist."

I'm not him. But, I know who you are talking about (he sent me a link to this blog). Now that I see how you trashed him, I'll probably just remain anonymous like the rest of you are.

[Another voice]

USC all great points besides the anti-immigrant crowd even though they prevailed in defeating CIR at the end of the day the problem is still there. 12 Million people are still here and are not going anywhere. Unless the government decides to fix the system and design a better system for future flow this will be a mess as it is today. But since these people in DC only worry about the next election is hard for them to actually do their jobs and do something good for the country like CIR.

[USC]

"Do you anti-immigrants have any other words besides amnesty in your vocabulary?"

FYI, The facts are:

(a) I am for amnesty.
(b) Most other pro-immigrant posters on this blog are not for amnesty.
(c) The last version of CIR was not amnesty.
(d) Illegal immigration stems from the fact that we have a highly restrictive system of immigration. Some, of its provision are anti-family and in fact a violation of human rights. For instance, there is no reason a US Citizen husband should have to wait more than a few days to bring his spouse or children into the country.

[Greg Siskind]

>>I don't know these "anti-immigrants" you speak of. Most Americans are pro-immigration.

We just tend to frown upon lawlessness. Boy, you must find that just quirky. How could we possibly want people to obey the law!<<

If only this were true for the anti-immigrant folks. Whenever Congress seeks to create a system to make it POSSIBLE to enter legally (and I'm talking about people outside the US who are not currently out of status in the US), the same anti-immigration folks rant about protecting American workers and protecting American culture (a la Pat Buchanan).

I'm still looking for the anti-"amnesty" group that proposes creating a genuine work visa/green card system in exchange for enforcement and no legalization program. You won't find this because these groups are against immigration and not just "lawlessness." Find me the place on the NumbersUSA or FAIR or Minuteman web sites that encourage Congress to create such programs.

[Legal and waiting]

TX, I think it is Roy. Yes, I think he is your average, run of the mill anti-immigrant, but he just wants to look like something better than that. You know, hiding behind the white hood.

Roy, there is nothing in this world that you like more than the laws that don' apply to you, isn't it? There is just absolutely no comparison to the power you get when you cry that 'they' should comply with the law that you are not subject to. Oh, how sweet it is to proclaim 'we are nation of laws' when you absolutely certain you will never be fined or otherwise punished under that law. Those who were booting Rosa Parks off the bus felt the same way, too.

Roy, honestly, I don't think you need a blog. I think you need a therapist.

[TX]

Another Voice......there's no point in trying to make this guy understand....an anti-immigrant will take the article you just posted is twist it around so he can make a point that only satisfies him.

We have had Roy on these boards long enough to understand him, take it from me, let it go. He does'nt have enough brains to understand or else he would still have the job he lost to the H1-B worker.

[Another voice]

Do you anti-immigrants have any other words besides amnesty in your vocabulary? I think you must be in this camp.

Many immigrants were legal only because there were no rules
Sunday, July 22, 2007
BY BRIAN DONOHUE

There are many solid argu ments for why the United States should not grant legal status to illegal immigrants, as proposed in the Senate immigration reform bill quashed last month.

But throughout the immigra tion debate, one particular mantra was heard from opponents of legalization, perhaps more than any other:

"My ancestors came here legally."

So too, the argument holds, must today's immigrants. We're a nation of laws, we must be consistent, and we must not reward law breakers.

It's a mighty handy argument that worked wonders for oppo nents of the legalization bill. It's logical, and draws a clear moral distinction between previous generations of law-abiding immi grants and today's border-jumpers. It heads off allegations of xenophobia, allowing the speaker to say it's not immigrants he or she is against, just illegality.

It works, too, because it rings true with Americans. The images burned into our brains of previous immigration waves come largely from newsreels and photos of im migrants disembarking at Ellis Island, one at a time, orderly, legally.

There's one problem with the argument. It's utter hogwash.

First of all, for hundreds of years, as immigrants poured in by the hundreds of thousands from the 1600s to the early 1900s, there were simply no federal immigration laws to break.

Unless you were a criminal or insane (or after 1882, Chinese), once you landed here, you were legal.

Crediting yesteryear's immi grants with following the laws is like calling someone a good driver because they never got caught speeding on the Autobahn.

"Only 1 percent of people who showed up at Ellis Island were turned away," said Mae Ngai, author of "Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America."

"What that statement is ignorant of is that we didn't always have restrictions. It's a fairly recent phenomenon."

Level the playing field hypothetically, and the argument becomes even more preposterous.

Imagine today's immigration laws, which make it impossible for most poor foreign farmers to immi grate legally -- in effect in, say, in 1849.

Somewhere in Ireland, a starv ing farmer turns to his family, their mouths green from eating grass in the midst of the potato famine.

"We could escape to America and have food to eat," the farmer says. "But I'd never do that without a visa. That would be a viola tion of U.S. immigration law."

Ridiculous, of course. That farmer would have done exactly what today's Mexicans, Chinese and Guatemalans are doing by the millions -- get to the United States so they can feed their families, and worry about getting papers later.

Which brings us to the second reason the "my ancestors came legally" argument is absurd.

It's because lots of people's ancestors simply didn't.

Once Congress put immigration quotas in place to keep out less desirable Eastern and Southern Europeans in 1921, they began sneaking in by the thousands.

On June 17, 1923, the New York Times reported that W.H. Husband, commissioner general of im migration, had been trying for two years "to stem the flow of immi grants from central and southern Europe, Africa and Asia that has been leaking across the borders of Mexico and Canada and through the ports of the east and west coasts."

A story from the Sept. 16, 1927, New York Times describes government plans for stepped up Coast Guard patrols because thousands of Chinese, Japanese, Greeks, Rus sians and Italians were landing in Cuba and then hiring smugglers to take them to the United States, illegally.

Two years earlier, the immigra tion service reported that 1.4 million immigrants might be living illegally in the U.S., according to the immigration service's 1925 annual report.

"The figures presented are worthy of very serious thought, especially when it is considered that such a great percentage of our population ... whose first act upon reaching our shores was to break our laws by entering in a clandestine manner," the report found.

The problem got so bad that the government was forced to legalize an estimated 200,000 illegal European immigrants by a process called pre-examination. These days, the process would be called amnesty.

Clearly, if everyone's grandparents said they immigrated legally, someone's grandparents were lying.

"When people cite their grandparents, they're basically operating with a very limited understanding of what immigration was back then," said Edward O'Donnell, author of "1001 Things Everyone Should Know About Irish American History."

"There's nothing people are more proud of than these huddled masses yearning to breathe free. It's based on a very skewed or no knowledge of history."

Stanford University history professor Richard White discovered that after he began researching a book on his family's immigrant past.

White found his grandfather tried to immigrate from Ireland through Canada in 1936 because he could not get a visa under the quota laws.

"He tried to come through Detroit. It was hard to get caught at Detroit, but he managed to get caught," White said. Back in Canada, his grandfather called his brother, a Chicago police officer, who crossed the border and met him there. The two then walked to Detroit, his brother flashing his Chicago policeman's badge to U.S. customs officers who waved the pair through.

"I wouldn't be here, my brothers wouldn't be here if illegal aliens had been rounded up and dragged out," said White, a 1992 Pulitzer Prize finalist.

Few people say what White does in public. But since Ngai wrote her book in 2005, she has heard from some of them. They're not going on talk shows, blogging or writing letters to newspaper editors. But they're out there, even if they don't know it.

Perhaps if the Senate's legaliza tion bill comes around again, their story could be a rallying cry for those in favor of amnesty.

"Their voice drops to a whisper," Ngai says. "And they say to me, "you know, my grandparents came illegally."

Brian Donohue is a Star-Ledger staff writer who covers immigration.

[Do you anti-immigrants have any other words besides amnesty in your vocabulary?]

I don't know these "anti-immigrants" you speak of. Most Americans are pro-immigration.

We just tend to frown upon lawlessness. Boy, you must find that just quirky. How could we possibly want people to obey the law!

Libertarians want to legalize pot. I think they may be smoking too much of it. Another one of those quirky laws they don't feel they should obey, I guess.

[Another voice]

WOW so much thought in this conversation to define natural born citizens of the US. And let's not forget family unification which seems like a natural human thing to do?????

[TX]

But some of you don't want to face justice. You want amnesty.

Do you anti-immigrants have any other words besides amnesty in your vocabulary?

If you, even for a second, think that the CIR that failed was amnesty, then its not even worth discussing the subject of immigration with you.

Legal and Waiting.....do you think this is Roy? Sure sounds like him. I wonder what he's afrid of that he would'nt use his real name or id.

[Legal Immi]

Greg,

I beleive you are in this immigration law practice for quite sometime. Did you ever come across an "anchor baby" sponser his or her parents. For me it seems highly impractical way to immigrate, Am I missing something here like parents of american citizens not subjected to numerical caps etc. As far as I know only people who are not subjected to numerical and country caps are sposes of american citizens ...

[Greg Siskind]

I think the general theme that "anchor babies" insults only the parents is wrong. Whether intentional or not, the term will always be linked to the children. The kids are always going to be considered second class citizens when we use repugnant terms like "anchor baby" to refer to them.

[Not about who is better]

"The only difference between you and 'them' is that you were lucky enough to be born on the 'right' side of the border. That does not make you any better than them, you know."

I know that. This isn't about who is better or more deserving. It is about rule of law. We all deserve to be treated fairly by the law.

[Everyone has rights under the Constitution]

"but you cannot argue that people who have lived here for years without papers, who have strong ties to this country have no rights, and should be kicked out. "

They have the right to fight, in court, deportation. They get to have their case heard. People aren't just rounded up and deported without a hearing.

We are a nation of laws. We even afford people accused of breaking the law a chance to defend themselves. That is how we work.

In cases like this where people have lived here and "become Americans", mostly due to the fact that our unwillingness to enforce the law is almost a defacto invitation to break it, we should allow exceptions and an opportunity for people to get on the right side of the law.

But some of you don't want to face justice. You want amnesty. You want law breaking to be ignored.

[Legal and waiting]

Why not compare this to Rosa Parks? Because it highlights your true beliefs? I see no other reason. This fight is about fairness to everyone regardless of where they were born. The only difference between you and 'them' is that you were lucky enough to be born on the 'right' side of the border. That does not make you any better than them, you know.

[TX]

Talking about people who do not have the legal right to reside in this country?? And what makes you think that your ancestors had any legal rights when they came here? And please don't bring up the argument they came here legally. Go back and read up on some history, go figure out what the word "WOP" means, this was given to the Italian immigrants coming here "without papers." Some of those without paper people might be your grand parents. Yes, I do agree that not everyone who comes here should be given a right to stay here, but you cannot argue that people who have lived here for years without papers, who have strong ties to this country have no rights, and should be kicked out. Our stupid immigrations laws need to be changed so people can come in legally, and yes, not everyone will be allowed, but at least it would better then the situation today. This is a civil rights issue. You might not like this fact, but this country protects the rights of each individual within its borders.

And to the person, who thinks that US citizen children of the undocumented are used as pawns, get a life and get over yourself.

[Don't compare this to Rosa Parks]

"That's what racists were saying about Rosa Parks when she broke the law. "

Rosa Parks was seeking fair treatment and civil rights. She was born in this country and as a citizen should expect the same rights as anyone else.

Please, don't hijack the civil rights movement. What nonsense. We are talking about people who don't have a legal right to reside in this country. Let's not twist the issues here.

[Legal Immi]

I just want to see a single "Anchor Baby" getting citizenship for their parents. I have not seen a single example for this anywhere in the media because it is practically impossible. The child has to turn 21 before he can start sponsership process to his/her parents and the family based immigration for high demand countries takes anywhere from 10 to 20 years.

[Legal and waiting]

Roy, you are 'just against the people who want to break the laws', aren't you? That's what racists were saying about Rosa Parks when she broke the law. Of course, those people never were agianst blacks, they truly loved them - some were even brought up by black servants. They were just against blacks breaking the segregation laws. Just like you, Roy.

[Laws are not suggestions]

"read up on what the demographics changes in CA are going to be 25 years from now, its not the immigration, but the birth rate of the current immigrants that will change the landscape....oh did I scare you now?"

Are you attempting to scare me? Not working.

The US has always been a nation of immigrants. Nobody is arguing against that. People are arguing against ignoring the laws. Should the laws be change so that they are more friendly towards immigrants? Sure. But some people here argue for anarchy.

[Not unconstitutional]

"Such a law would be unconstitutional since it would conflict with the 14th amendment. "

It would be unconstitutional to deny the baby citizenship. However, those who illegally enter the country should expect no benefit based soley on the citizenship of their children.

I am not saying that illegals/undocumented people cannot later become legal and ultimately citizens. What I am saying is that children should not be used as pawns - to whatever extent they are.

[TX]

“What kind of a person would have a child to get around the law? That is not a family value I am aware of. “

Do you know that the baby has be 21 years old before any kind of immigration benefit could be granted to the parents? Why don't you do your research first before posting here. Oh sorry, you did do your research by listening to Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity. It is actually individuals like you who do not realize what family values are. Please do not judge an entire class of immigrants before you know their individual stories. I, as an immigrant and a mother of an US citizen am greatly insulted when I hear people like you make blanket claims that we had our babies just for gaining some kind of residency here. Please get off your high horse. This country is indeed great, but I don't want to be here so badly that I would bring a child into this world just so I can reap some immigration reward. Shame on you.

And by the way, the person who stated that the term "Anchor Baby" is not an insult to the US citizen baby but to the baby's parents.....I guess you wouldn’t feel insulted if someone insulted your mother or father right...some family values you have. Just think for a second, these same US citizens that you are so insulting, will one day grow up and vote, might even be president. And its not just a few babies, read up on what the demographics changes in CA are going to be 25 years from now, its not the immigration, but the birth rate of the current immigrants that will change the landscape....oh did I scare you now?

[Another voice]

If a parent made a decision to migrate to the US for personal reasons and the children were born here they are US CITIZENS. They did not ask to come here but if their parents are trying to have a better life here because they want to pursue their American Dream so be it. This does not change the fact that they are American citizens just like the children of ALL generations of Immigrants that came before them this is how this country has become so diverse. People the head is not just to hold you hair you have a brain inside use it and have some freaking common sense.

[USC]

"The law should be changed so that children cannot be used as pawns."

Such a law would be unconstitutional since it would conflict with the 14th amendment. FYI, there are enough "liberals", "libertarians" around to make sure that a constitutional amendment will never pass.

[The term "anchor baby"]

"Anchor Baby" does not have a negative connotation towards children. If there is a negative there, it is directed towards parents who have children with the sole goal of avoiding immigration laws.

What kind of a person would have a child to get around the law? That is not a family value I am aware of.

I think we should stop using the term "anchor baby" because the word is misunderstood, but I don't think people using it have the intent of insulting children. If there is an insult to children, it is the use of them as pawns to avoid the law.

The law should be changed so that children cannot be used as pawns.

[USC]

Greg:

"John - Sure, as long as you label you give it to your hero Michelle Malkin who at least one amusing site lists as a Jackpot Baby."

Thanks for that link. Till, yesterday I didn't even know who Malkin was. I wasn't missing out on much. Apparently, she is from the crowd that believes in "We made it, now let's pull up the draw bridge." Disgraceful!

Also, I followed the link provided by John's wikipedia reference (near the bottom):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

"Anchor baby or jackpot baby are pejorative terms[1][2]..."

So, I would respectfully suggest you apply the same criteria in deleting posts with "jackpot babies" as you would to "anchor babies". There is no reason people can't use "jus soli" if this topic is to be discussed. BTW, shame on India, England and others for discriminating against persons born in their countries!

Dream Act Guy:

I think amnesty is the only solution in solving the problem of 12 million undocumented immigrants. However, a substantial portion of the US problem is opposed to amnesty. Folks like Senator Sessiona are never going to go along with that but if we are to win the ones in the center there needs to be an acknowledgement that those here in undocumented status broke the law and would like to know make amends. "The undocumenteds" and "the illegals" can both be construed in a negative manner. The only neutral term is to refer to them as immigrants, however, then you are making no distinction between them and those here legally. My suspicion is that the GCs, F1s, B1s, L1s and H1s would object to that.

[A]

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

Fresno, CALIFORNIA (CNN) -- We already knew we had broken borders. And when Congress chickened out on immigration reform and showed that it's not equipped to tackle anything more challenging than pork or pay raises, we knew we had a broken branch. Now it's clear that we have a broken dialogue.
art.navarette.wapo.jpg

Ruben Navarrette Jr.: Illegal immigration is always someone else's fault. At least that's what we tell ourselves.

We like to think of ourselves, and our communities, as innocent victims of sinister forces that are beyond our control. Concerned that there are too many illegal immigrants in the United States, that our culture is getting too spicy, and that the country is becoming too Hispanic, we blame Mexico or mega-corporations or what one commentator ominously labeled "socio-ethnic centric groups" such as the National Council of La Raza.

You see, illegal immigration is always someone else's fault. At least that's what we tell ourselves. It's easier that way.

And, when we do engage the topic, we get distracted by arguments over whether, for instance, a town such as Hazleton, Pennsylvania, has the right to dabble in do-it-yourself immigration enforcement or whether the Founding Fathers were on the right track in prohibiting that sort of thing by conceiving of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that a state or locality cannot pass laws that interfere with federal law.

It seems that question has been answered now that U.S. District Judge James M. Munley of the central Pennsylvania district has struck down a poorly conceived ordinance dubbed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which sought to punish landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and employers who hire them. More than 100 towns and communities have passed similar ordinances.

Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who has ridden the issue to some degree of national notoriety, has vowed to appeal the decision. But Barletta is whistling by the graveyard. Higher courts are likely to see this issue pretty much as the district court did. It's what attorneys call black-and-white law.

What we should be talking about instead is just how disingenuous these types of localities are being. Illegal immigration is a self-inflicted wound. And it's not just employers and landlords that benefit. It's also, yep, the same communities and towns that are doing all the complaining. There is only thing that lured illegal immigrants to Hazleton. It wasn't the scenery, the schools, or the local sports teams. It was jobs -- jobs willingly provided by individuals and businesses that, in turn, forked over tax dollars and filled town coffers. When businesses do well, the town does well. And when the town does well, the people who live there feel as if they're doing well.
Don't Miss

* U.S. workers will pick that lettuce -- for $1,000 a week
* All-American forum failed to address Hispanic issues
* Border security talk a bluff for immigration critics
* Democrats lack clarity on immigration

I've never been to Hazleton. But I imagine that the place is lovely and has its share of restaurants, hotels and construction firms. It probably also has plenty of working mothers who rely on maids and nannies and plenty of working dads who come home to nicely manicured lawns maintained by gardeners and landscapers, all courtesy of our broken borders. And for years, it's been this way, and no one said a thing about it. Because everyone prospered.

Towns like Hazleton seem to think that they deserve some relief and some sympathy. But one thing they don't deserve is a free pass.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of The San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group. You can read his column here.

[Greg Siskind]

>>I was wondering what you thought of the term "illegal" or the "illegals?"<<

I don't care for the term, but to some extent it's too late to do as much about it since the word has entered the vernacular after so many years of usage. I think the term "undocumented immigrant" is better. I'd hope that we can work to make people aware that "anchor baby" is an offensive term early on before too much time passes.

[Dream Act guy]

Greg,

I was wondering what you thought of the term "illegal" or the "illegals?"

[Greg Siskind]

John - Sure, as long as you label you give it to your hero Michelle Malkin who at least one amusing site lists as a Jackpot Baby.

http://www.spittleandink.com/isis/?cat=4

[John]

Greg, Can we use the alternate term "Jackpot Baby"? Most coutries are doing away with this concept including India, New Zealand & United Kingdom. We should too.See wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

[USC]

Greg:

Nice piece. A couple of links for all to read and consider:

Thailand:

http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/3014/

http://www.stopvaw.org/Human_Rights_Study_Shows_that_Obstacles_to_Citizenship_in_Thailand_Lead_to_Vulnerability_to_Human_Trafficking.html

Lou Dobbs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs

[Strong supporter of immigration and immigrants in general]

"Hey, the least I can do is make fun of them, and I don't apologize."

You really raise the level of debate here. No wonder people don't take you serious. Nor do they take serious people who use the bigot or anti-immigrant card every chance they get.

[USC]

TX:

Hmmmm...Seems like there are quite a few sock puppets (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sock%20puppet) around. Unfortunately (fortunately?), Greg deleted John's post before I saw it!!

[i see you roy]

welcome back roy lawson
if you are going to post anyway, might as well use your name, your talk gives you away every time.

[Robin Hood]

What about Lou Dobbs's insensitive and borderline offensive comments toward illegal immigrants? Is that OK with you Mr. Anti-Bigotry? Michelle is another jewel... I guess they can be insensitive because you agree with them. That doesn't seem very objective to me. Hey, the least I can do is make fun of them, and I don't apologize.

[Robin Hood - your words are offensive towards women and over weight people]

I find your comment regarding Malkin as an attack on women everywhere. I find your attack on Lou Dobbs regarding his weight as insensitive.

I demand that Greg Siskind delete your unkind comments towards women and over-weight people.

Please don't comment further on the subject of bigotry until you understand just how much of a problem you have.

[Shame on you Calouste]

Shame on you Calouste for supporting the limiting of non offensive speech. The word is only offensive in the mind of Greg Siskind - who wants to brand any idea he opposes as racist or anti-immigrant.

Greg Siskind sees bigotry as a tool to advance his cause. So he creates imaginary bigots - nearly everyone that doesn't agree with him - that way people don't actually think about the issues.

Greg Siskind is a horrible person for putting the interests of corporations above the interests of immigrants. That makes him an anti-immigrant and an immigrant exploiter.

And anyone that pulls the bigot card to further their cause is quite simply a disgusting individual. Imagine all the actual cases of bigotry that don't get the attention they deserve because Greg Sisking uses the term so loosely and unjustly. People like him cause harm and enable bigotry. It's like crying fire in a theater when there is no fire.

[Robin Hood]

Michelle Malkin should shut her sweet and sour ass up, then I will agree with what she says (which should be nothing). Lou Dobbs, well maybe if he lost some weight he'd lighten up (get it?)

[Calouste]

Well, shame on you, "Bigot card pulled again", that your vocabulary is so limited that you can't explain your standpoint without using offensive language.

Try www.thesaurus.com to help you replace the offending words and share your thoughts with us.

[Bigot card pulled again]

I can't tell you why I don't agree with Greg Siskind - and I can't even use the words in context because he will delete the post.

If you think Malkin is racist because of her views, that just goes to show how shallow your thinking is. The "thought nazis" of this world want to intimidate everyone with bigot charge.

Shame on you Siskind.

[IsNotNull]

First and foremost, I want so say that I have the utmost respect for Greg. Yes, I am an immigrant that really appreciates people like Mr. Siskind. Now, I can only laugh at somebody like Michelle Malkin. Yes, Michelle take a real good look at yourself in the mirror... need I say more?

[Another Voice]

Its unreal that "The Most trusted name in news" channel can have such racist spreading this kind of hate talk across the airwaves everyday. This guy is so short sided and narrow minded unfortunately his followers believe all the hate talk he promotes everyday. Is good to hear that a national publication like USA Today opens up a space for people like Greg to give the other side of the story.

[You are wrong]

But what else is new?