Who gets to enter the Political Nation? Edwards And Brimelow On SCOTUS' Anchor Baby Atrocity

And what about disenfranchisement?

I recently discussed SCOTUS’ treasonous Anchor Baby decision (but n.b it’s narrow—it hangs by a 5-4 thread, as VP J.D. Vance has said) with James Edwards on his POLITICAL CESSPOOL radio show here.

James Edwards has been a loyal friend of VDARE.com and a fellow inhabitant of the Dissident Right catacomb for many years.

As with my other recent podcast appearances on the issue here, here, here, here, we covered a lot of surprisingly variegated territory. But my basic point: it’s a huge victory that the Anchor Baby issue has finally gotten into political debate. Now it can be dealt with, by statute or by Constitutional Amendment. Let’s fight it out!

(Right, Congressional GOP? Hello?)

One issue that James Edwards and I focussed on: the Anchor Baby issue is ultimately about who enters the Political Nation—i.e. who gets to vote. Implicitly, the SCOTUS female consensus (counting Chief Justice Roberts) means that the U.S.-born children of the Biden Rush should ultimately be given the right to vote. Needless to say, this is just another attack on the Historic American Nation.

As it happened, Counter Currents Editor Greg Johnson simultaneously addressed this issue in his July 13 essay Disenfranchisement.

Greg was discussing the disenfranchisement of e.g. felons and other categories who already technically have the right to vote.

In contrast, James Edwards and I were discussing how to prevent illegal aliens from ultimately affecting (through their U.S. born children) the right to vote.

But whatever. There are at least two examples of disenfranchisement in the Anglosphere: in the U.S., the elimination of black voting by white Southerners after Reconstruction; in South Africa, the elimination of Cape Colored voting, enshrined in 1909 U.K. South Africa Act, after Afrikaners got control in 1948.

Not pretty. But they wanted to survive as nations.

Then.