GOP Star Mia Love Fires Back at “Anchor Baby” Story

Mia Love speaks at the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida. Ron Sachs/DPA/ZUMAPRESS.com

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Mia Love has made her Haitian immigrant family’s bootstraps story the centerpiece of her campaign to become the first black Republican woman elected to Congress. But on Monday, Mother Jones raised some serious questions about the Utah congressional candidate’s public statements about her family’s immigration story, which she’s used to justify a host of draconian budget proposals that range from eliminating the school lunch program to axing student loans.

In 2011, Love described herself to a Deseret News reporter as what some in her party like to derisively call an “anchor baby”—that is, someone who was born in the United States to immigrants hoping to gain legal citizenship. “My parents have always told me I was a miracle and our family’s ticket to America,” she told the paper.

The story has created a bit of a stir in Utah, where Love is trying to knock off six-term incumbent Rep. Jim Matheson, the state’s only Democratic member of the House. Love has fired back and done a number of interviews criticizing our story. Yet she still has refused to answer the fairly basic questions Mother Jones has been putting to her campaign for more than a month, namely: How did her parents get to the United States, and how did they survive here on only $10 if they didn’t get any government “handouts”?

Instead of offering a straightforward answer, Love has blamed the Matheson campaign for somehow planting the Mother Jones story. She told a local radio station, “It is so sad that Jim Matheson and his friends would go as far as attacking my family, attacking the American Dream.” For the record, the Matheson campaign had nothing to do with the Mother Jones story.

Love has closely aligned herself with members of her party who have pushed to end birthright citizenship (as outlined in the 14th Amendment) for children they believe were born here in an attempt by their parents to win permanent residency. (In reality, having a baby on American soil is not a sure-fire hedge against deportation.) Her campaign is managed by people who used to work for Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), one of the leading proponents of legislation that would deny citizenship to US-born children of non-citizens—people just like Love herself. (The issue was so central to Lee’s own 2010 campaign that HBO’s Newsroom parodied it this summer.)

Despite all of the interviews Love has done in the past 24 hours, she has done little to clear up the inconsistencies in her story. She has claimed amnesia about the 2011 Deseret News interview, saying she just can’t recall saying those things. She continues to claim that her parents came here legally, telling one local TV reporter that her parents had come on a “tourist visa.” When asked by Fox News whether her birth in the United States allowed her parents to become citizens, she replied, “I’m not sure, maybe. What if someone got married? Maybe. Again, what we need to focus on is that legal immigration is a good thing when you’re contributing to society. I’m the product of legal immigration.”

In another interview with the Salt Lake ABC affiliate, a reporter pressed her on her comments to the Deseret News, asking, “Just one last time, for the record…your parents didn’t get to stay in this country because you were born here?” Love responded, “Chris, what if they did? So what? What if they did? I mean they are legal. They are legal US citizens. I was born in this country.”

Of course, the reason all of this matters is that Love has seemingly endorsed deporting American citizens whose parents were illegal immigrants. And it matters because it’s still not clear that her own parents took an entirely “legal” path to citizenship. They came to the country in 1973. She told the Deseret News her parents were able to get “citizenship” after she was born in December 1975. That’s a long time to be here on a tourist visa. Because it was so difficult for Haitians to get permanent visas in the 1970s, most who immigrated came on temporary visas and illegally overstayed. (Even today, nearly half the illegal immigrants in the US came legally on a temporary visa.) In 1986, Congress provided amnesty to many Haitians who were in the country illegally.

Is this how Love’s parents managed to escape the horrors of Duvalier’s Haiti? It would make for a much more complicated story than the one she’s been telling, and it would cast her own professed policy proposals in a far different light. Perhaps that’s why Love still won’t reveal the full story.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate