Ultimate Fighting Conservatives: John Yoo v. Ann Coulter

Two prominent conservative pundits argue about birthright citizenship, "anchor babies," and immigration policy more generally.

An interesting (even if off-topic) discussion developed in the comments to today’s Morning Docket about the subject of birthright citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, commenter “Stax” wondered:

This is random, but the whole birthright citizenship thing makes me nervous. I honestly and truly see the argument on the anti-side (which makes me think I’m taking crazy pills). SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the Constitution (and laws in general) so that no word is meaningless. But if that’s true, then WTF is left of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” when you’re already talking about people born in the U.S.? Wong Kim Ark turned it into meaning “subject to U.S. laws” (which certainly makes sense to me), but that reading leaves it as applying to almost nobody (children of ambassadors or invading soldiers?).

As it turns out, there’s a podcast for that. In a recent debate about so-called “anchor babies” and immigration, hosted on the (excellent) website Ricochet, lawyer turned pundit Ann Coulter and Berkeley law professor John Yoo got into the nitty-gritty of the Fourteenth Amendment, its implications for citizenship, and the relevant Supreme Court precedents on these subjects. They discuss, among other things, the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”).

Yoo and Coulter, old friends and fellow conservative firebrands, agree on many topics — but immigration is not one of them. As a legal matter, Yoo supports the current approach to birthright citizenship, even if it allows for citizenship for “anchor babies,” while Coulter does not. As a policy matter, Yoo takes a somewhat libertarian view in favor of robust immigration; he just wants immigrants to be the “right” kind of immigrants (e.g., educated and highly skilled). Coulter, in contrast, has had it up to here with immigration. She believes that it benefits rich Americans (who get cheaper goods and services) and the Democratic Party (who get votes from immigrants turned citizens) at the expense of, well, “real Americans” (not her exact wording, but it might as well be).

Check out the podcast here (and skip ahead to around the 20-minute mark if you want to go straight to the Coulter-Yoo debate). Who gets the better of the argument?

The Ricochet Podcast (Ep. 272): Anchor Babies [Ricochet]

Earlier: Morning Docket: 09.01.15

Sponsored