Sarah Palin spent about seven minutes of Fox News airtime gushing over Donald Trump’s immigration policy, even though she couldn’t answer any of host Greta Van Susteren’s questions about it.
Van Susteren’s introduction set the pro-Trump tone for the discussion.
VAN SUSTEREN: Trump fresh off jury duty and taking no prisoners! Trump is blasting his critics who say his plan to get rid of citizenship for children born in the United States, or anchor babies, is unconstitutional. But the billionaire real estate mogul, he is not backing down!
Palin merely continued on the theme. “Heck, yeah, it’s possible” to build a wall on the southern border and get Mexico to pay for it, she told Van Susteren. Palin claimed that Trump’s “commonsense plans” are what most Americans want but “just not being able to say because we don’t have a microphone like he does.”
“The immigration plan of his, especially the wall, that’s common sense,” Palin added. “It’s a real shot in the arm to constitutionalists and conservatives who want America to be put first by our leaders.”
Of course, Greta didn’t challenge her BFF’s notion that Trump – who wants to undo the 14th Amendment – is a constitutionalist. Instead, she wondered if his plan might be “somewhat incomplete” because a lot of the illegal immigration is not via Mexico but includes a lot of people who overstay their visas. “What is he going to do, go round those people up?” she asked Palin.
Obviously, Palin had no idea. “He’s talking big picture, of course, plus specifics, thankfully,” she replied. Then she changed the subject to say that Trump’s plan is more specific than the other candidates. “It’ll be great to hear all 16, 17 of them reveal their plan!” she enthused. I'm sure she'll read all of them.
Next, Palin blamed immigrants for “decimating the middle class” and pretended that her nativism was due to concern for American minorities. Our “open borders,” Palin said, allow illegal immigrants “to compete or take American jobs and really decimat(e) the middle class, especially young black men, young Hispanic men. Where their unemployment rates are 30%, 40% and cheap labor is going to make that even worse for them.”
Van Susteren never challenged a word. Instead, she moved on to ask Palin about Trump’s desire to undo birthright citizenship, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. “What do we do about the children?” Van Susteren asked.
Again, Palin couldn’t answer. She said that “the children” will be used to portray Republicans as “heartless” when “nothing could be further from the truth.” She continued by arguing that preventing them from becoming citizens is the pro-family thing to do.
PALIN: A plank in our platform is pro-family and a family is a unit and I believe what Mr. Trump and probably the other Republican candidates, once they do come out with some kind of policy proposals, what they’re saying is, a family is a unit and if their parents broke the law and if they’re here illegally, well, they need to get back in line and because a family is a unit, Greta. The family sticks together and the kids have to get in line with their mom and dad.
Huffington Post notes that birthright citizenship was common law in the U.S. since its founding. When that right was suspended by the infamous Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court, the ruling was supplanted by the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868.
But Van Susteren never mentioned how radical a proposal denying birthright citizenship is nor did she question anything else Palin said. Instead, Van Susteren spent the rest of the segment trying to press Palin about whether or not she’s endorsing Trump for president.
Watch what passes for Fox News political analysis below, from the August 18 On The Record.
According to CNN (I think), he would have been in contempt of court had he not shown up after ignoring several previous calls. The man’s getting so full of himself that even the most enamoured are likely to start wondering if he may not be affected by dementia or something of that nature.
@mj I’ve always felt that the Amerindians should have been more selective when those foreigners appeared. Now, that was an uncivilised bunch if ever there was one and they’ve not improved over time.
Why not take it to its inevitable conclusion — and deny US citizenship to EVERYBODY NOT descended from the ORIGINAL inhabitants of this country (that is, Native American Indians)?
Wonder how long it’ll take Trump, Palin, and the rest of those dumbasses to figure out that would mean THEY aren’t citizens, either — hopefully not until they receive their deportation orders . . .
So, right-wingers denounce so many rulings as “worse than Dred Scott” but their constant attacks on the Fourteenth Amendment and a seeming desire to roll back or repeal that would lead right back to the right-wing’s “good ol’ days” when slavery was legal and simply moving from a slave state to a free state didn’t change the slave’s legal status.
It’s also a bit funny how Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal would lose their citizenship if the 14th Amendment were to be repealed and jus sanguinis were established as the “citizenship law” of the land. While Rubio was born in the US, neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth, and Jindal was effectively an anchor baby—his Indian mother was pregnant with him when she entered the country along with his Indian father, and she gave birth to him before either she or his father had become naturalized citizens. And I think Ted Cruz would also be SOL on the citizenship matter; yes his mother was a natural-born citizen but his father wasn’t and Cruz was born in Canada and some readings of jus sanguinis—some folks might remember the kerfluffle over Obama’s citizenship despite having an American-born mother.
I did a little research on jus sanguinis vs jus soli and I found out that the “Gulf Cooperation Council” states (which include Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman) restrict their citizenship laws to jus sanguinis—largely because (as Wiki says) “they fear that a larger population could be a threat to the existing political systems in these countries. In the workplace, preferential treatment is given to full citizens. State benefits are also generally available for citizens only and not residents.” I wonder how The Donald’s supporters would like having the US compared to a bunch of dictatorial regimes which don’t exactly have good records when it comes to human rights? Remember, these are countries where (the dreaded) Shariah law is in effect, not merely for legal citizens of these countries but also the non-citizens—where people have hands chopped off for thievery and are executed for committing adultery and where “guest workers” routinely are kept as virtual slaves having their passports held by their employers until they “pay off their debt.” On the other hand, maybe The Donald’s supporters wouldn’t mind that very much at all.
At least, until THEY become the victims of the policy.
There has NEVER been a situation where the words “Palin” and “thinks” should be put together back-to-back. (Unless, of course, the “Palin” in question is legendary Monty Python member, Michael Palin, who must rue the day that the Quitta from Wasilla ever came to prominence. Then again, when he’s being funny or silly, it’s merely an act, not a way of life.)