On August 22, 2015, 2016, Republican candidate for president, Donald Trump, was asked by ABC’s Good Morning America reporter, Tom Llamas, to stop using the term anchor babies:
TRUMP: “You mean it’s not political correct and yet everybody uses it.”
LLAMAS: “Look it up in the dictionary. It’s offensive!”
Trump: “You give me a better term and I’ll use it.”
Llamas: “The American-born childs [sic] of undocumented immigrants.”
TRUMP: “I’ll use the word anchor baby. Excuse me! I’ll use the word anchor baby!”
Some would argue that Trump won this exchange by focusing on the reporter’s call for more sensitive language, and that Trump was implying that this issue is about more than language. Others worry that it is not enough to imply such a thing, as some will not read into the response to determine what the speaker meant, and that by doing so, the candidate leaves himself open to others’ interpretations. Watching this exchange from another perspective, could lead one to believe that Trump was suggesting that he’ll use the language that he wants to use, no matter who it might offend. To those that have paid attention to Trump over the years, this does seem plausible. Trump may not be a seasoned politician, but he is a business man, and one has to believe that he’s been the victim of manipulation a time or two in his career. He should not have left this matter to chance.
Those of us that have paid attention to Trump over the years, and of late, would’ve appreciated more clarity, and he could’ve clarified the matter without losing standing in the exchange, or the race. He could’ve said something along the lines of:
“Okay, so my language is insensitive. I’m not going to stop using these words, but I’ll allow you to characterize me in this fashion, as long as we don’t lose focus on this issue. If you will ask Hillary Clinton, and all of my Republican opponents what they plan to do about “The American-born childs [sic] of undocumented immigrants”, being born on our shores for what I deem ulterior motives, I’ll allow you to call my language brutish and insensitive.
“This, right here, mr. reporter, is why America is losing, and why my plan to “make America great again” is winning,” I would add here, if I were Trump, attempting to speak in Trumpisms. “We allow people like this guy here to add confusion to the issue. Everybody gets upset at the language used, and no one ends up doing anything.
“What do you plan to do about it mr. reporter,” I would’ve then asked. “I’ll summarize your ideas on this issue for you: nothing. You just want to call me a brute, and insensitive, for the words I’ve used, so you can win a Peabody. What does the Congress plan to do about it? What does the current president plan to do about it? I’ll summarize: nothing. I’m not going to say that every Congressman has opted to do nothing. There have been proposals, and some of them are very good, but they get lost in committees, as language guys see to it that they never make it to the floor.
“Here’s what happens in this reporter’s PC world,” I would continue. “Candidate A comes out with a proposed solution. Reporters, politicians, and talking head guys scour that proposal for inartful language. They capitalize on a word, or a series of words, and they badger the candidate about it. Candidate A apologizes, and the entire issue gets swept under the rug, and we all get back to the business of doing nothing, and less-than-nothing I might add.
“Build a ten foot wall,” people that share this reporter’s mindset say with a snarky smirk, “and the illegal immigrants, looking to enter our country by the thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions, will just build an eleven foot ladder.” They’re never asked for an alternative proposal. They just scoff and call those that propose such solutions, brutish and insensitive.
“Go ask Hillary for an alternative to the current policies we have that Harry Reid considered insane,” I would’ve said. The reporter may have been shocked by this and called me out on the specifics of this Harry Reid quote.
“I have it right here. 1993, from the floor of the Senate, Harry Reid, Democrat, Nevada, eventual Senate Majority Leader said, “If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right?
“Senator Reid then proposed something called the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993,” I would add, “which died in committee. Harry Reid went onto say “Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?”
“Now Harry, being a good Democrat, has changed his position on the issue, but the level of insanity on this issue hasn’t changed. Some watchdog groups have it that our foreigner nationals give birth to a child in America, to the tune of about 400,000 of these “American-born childs [sic] of undocumented immigrants” a year.”
If the reporter took umbrage with this number and stated that he’s dubious that it’s that high, I would ask him if he knew that eighty-four hospitals in California alone, have been forced to close their doors due in part to the unpaid bills of illegal aliens, coupled with the fact that Medicaid has been unable to reimburse these hospitals for unpaid illegal alien delivery bills.
I would add that I “agree with most of the industrialized countries around the world, that such a law would only invite foreign nationals, unhappy with their current country, to try to take advantage of the best country in the world’s lax laws, or interpretation of such laws, on this subject. I agree with most Americans that we shouldn’t allow these foreign nationals to fly here, at eight and a half months pregnant, stay at a special maternity hotel until they’re ready to deliver, then after they deliver their child on our shores, they fly home to wait for a call from those kind-hearted, family-reunification proponents that ask them to come to America to parent their children.”
If the reporter called me out on the idea that the whole “anchor baby, family reunification process” is not as simple as I’ve drawn out, I would ask him if he’s quibbling over words again, or if he’s saying that the practice does not exist? I would ask him if he’s ever heard the term birth tourism? If he agreed, to some extent, that it is happening, but that he doesn’t care for the language I used to characterize it, I would ask him if there is an advantage to gaining citizenship, for those 400,000 foreign nationals a year, on average that do this every year?
“Tell Hillary, and all of the candidates that lined the stage in the most recent Fox debate, that the reason Trump sits atop the poll is based on the idea that he might do something here, and if that something doesn’t work, that he has promised to do something else, until all we find something that does work. Tell the candidates that Trump wouldn’t be so popular right now if the focus of the electorate’s concern was on selecting the politician that can best the other candidates in PC language.
“The language is not the problem mr. reporter.
“What we’re doing right now is making fun of proposals to build a wall, the drone proposal, the armed guard proposal, and the proposal to deport all twenty-to-thirty million illegal immigrants, and all of that laughter has permitted Congress people, and the president to say that because those proposals are so foolish that it’s better to do nothing, say nothing, and propose nothing. As Thomas Sowell has opined: “One of the most lame excuses for doing nothing is that we can’t do everything.”
“We’ve been doing nothing for, at least, thirty years, and we’ve had two presidents, over the last fifteen years that have been very careful about the words they’ve used in regards to this matter, and no foreign national –that plans to give birth in America for the reward it promises– has been made to feel the least bit uncomfortable giving birth to what watchdog groups say averages 400,000 “American-born childs [sic] of undocumented immigrants” a year. My proposal to the American people is that we try to make these people a little uncomfortable by doing something.
“Do the American people want another president that is careful to gauge his words before speaking, lest he offend those that are taking advantage of an insane system, or do they want someone that is willing to do something, and if that fails, something else, until we find something that works? Vote Trump 2016!”
Whether or not you think Donald Trump should be our president in 2016, we should all be outraged at the way things are done in Washington. We should be outraged that a member of the media doesn’t challenge a candidate’s stance on the issue, he informs the candidate to soften his language so as to prevent people’s feelings from getting hurt. That reporter doesn’t give a hoot about the people in question, he seeks to discredit the candidate, and his issue, until we’re back to doing nothing, because “we can’t do everything”. Even if you’re one that laughs at The Donald, you should appreciate the fact that his politically incorrect campaign on this issue might influence Republicans and Democrats to get something done. It’s their inability to get anything done on this issue, after all, that has opened up a hole for The Donald to become the most popular Republican, to date, running in the primary.