Some readers may have thought my recent column on anchor babies was more alarmist than the situation warranted. After all, many pregnant women complain when they have to get up from the TV to go to the bathroom. So how many illegals are realistically going to waddle across the border to give birth on the Sammy side of the street?
The Center for Immigration Studies provides timely context regarding the issue. According to Breitbart’s analysis of the report, “There are an estimated 28,000 births to illegal aliens every year in the Los Angeles metro area, exceeding the total number of U.S. births in 14 states and the District of Columbia.”
Illegals don’t have to be in labor when they sneak across the border, they can begin the anchor baby manufacturing process when they are already in the States. Since Los Angeles is a sanctuary city there’s little danger of being deported if the illegal confines herself to identity theft and an EBT card or two.
Once the baby’s due, the senorita calls the sanctuary ambulance for a ride to the sanctuary maternity ward where a crack sanctuary medical staff delivers a brand new anchor baby. This bebé ancla is not only the key that unlocks city, state and federal welfare programs for our new madre, the nino is also future deportation prevention, since sending mom back would mean “breaking up the family.”
(Isn’t it strange no one ever asks what kind of mother would abandon her baby rather than take it home with her?)
California’s total for anchor babies is 65,000 a year, followed by Texas’ 51,000 and Florida’s 16,000. Birthright citizenship in the US is a government–endorsed scam that allows Latin American mothers to sign their children up for the best welfare programs, much like wealthy New Yorkers put their infants on the waiting list for the best schools.
The entire grift could be ended tomorrow if either President Trump issued an executive order ending citizenship for illegals born on our side of the border or if our so–called Republican Congress passed a law mandating the same. The fact nothing has been done gives you an idea of how important discouraging illegals is to Congress.
Today’s other follow–up involves food. If food bureaucrats had any honor they would acknowledge the war on hunger has been won, put current programs on auto–pilot and then go make the millions in the private sector we’re assured they could make, if the ‘pubic servants’ weren’t so dedicated.
You can judge the size of the victory over hunger by going to the nearest shopping mall and counting the people who aren’t fat. Bonus points if you can find someone who’s not chewing.
Instead of celebrating their victory the calorie–pushers instead went looking for more enemies. Instead of hunger, they now fight “food anxiety.” This is a slippery term that covers essentially everyone that has ever wondered if the drive through at McDonalds will still be open when he gets there. The term can’t be quantified so there is no danger of the bureaucrats winning this war and seeing a consequent reduction in jobs and funding.
The second enemy was the “food desert” and it’s also part of the mission creep cavalcade. Food deserts don’t describe an actual desert where there’s no food. Instead it’s a geographic area devoid of grocery stores where government elites would feel comfortable shopping. It’s a snob’s wasteland where the man–on–the–street can’t pronounce “quinoa.”
The Washington Post was on this crisis like green on cilantro. Beverley Wheeler, director of DC Hunger Solutions, warned readers, “Grocery-store access is a racial equity issue that must be dealt with, and it’s a health issue. We can no longer pretend we don’t see what we see.”
What that means is that food deserts caused obesity. This never made sense to me. It would stand to reason inhabitants be thinner since the hungry had to walk farther to find food, just as one doesn’t find fat camels in the Sahara. Government jumped on this scam, too.
Crony capitalists used it to subsidize grocery store companies to build in favored areas. The non–profit parasite crowd started advocacy groups that would cause food deserts to bloom after being given only a few million tax dollars.
And then guess what happened? As Tamar Haspel, WaPost food columnist, recently wrote, “No, food deserts don’t cause obesity.” Tamara Dubowitz, admitted “because access was a social justice issue. [The belief] wasn’t based on evidence because there wasn’t any evidence.”
The War on Food Deserts began because it would produce more government spending and the term generated sympathy. That’s all that was needed to commence hostilities, because for the left emotion always trumps evidence.
If you don’t believe me, ask Justice Kananaugh.