sunset from behind the wire

sunset from behind the wire

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Anchor Babies


No European country grants birthright citizenship to any person born on its soil. Mexico doesn't grant birthright citizenship to the offspring of foreigners born on its soil. I realize that America has a long and generous past history of extending this privilege -- but perhaps it's time to revisit the practice. It's not only about Mexicans, Central Americans,  but it applies to other immigrant peoples who show up in the US, unbidden - like Jorge Ramos at a Donald Trump press conference.

No matter how things end up, going forward there has to be a national discussion that leads to action on the matter of anchor babies.

There is a big move to bring persecuted people from the Middle East to the USA. While I am sensitive to their plight, you know that if they birth a child while they're on US soil, they will be on welfare for life. Think of Obama's shiftless African relatives that we've been saddled with, and whose bills the public will be paying so long as they - their children and their children's children live.  We can't separate the aliens from their American passport holding offspring.

(aunt) Zeituni Obama, shiftless welfare recipient




14 comments:

  1. Any reading of the debates over the 14th Amendment at the time of its passage makes it clear that the children of people passing through, people visiting, ambassadors' children, etc., did NOT automatically become citizens. The "jurisdiction" meant permanent, i.e. that they did not "owe allegiance" to another government. Who in their right mind (many on the Right, BTW) believes that simply being here makes you a citizen? We didn't have immigration LAWS at the time of the 14th amendment, so it really does not even address the issue. But once we created immigration LAWS, it now applies - it doesn't make you a citizen of our nation if you were born here to ILLEGAL immigrants.

    Just like the 2nd Amendment - if you don't like it, change it, but stop trying to ignore it...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The precedent of 'past practice' needs to be set aside.

      Delete
  2. I would guess that the ENTIRE obama clan is shiftless.

    ReplyDelete
  3. +1 Race Bannon. That part of the 14th Amendment was almost an afterthought. But it was never intended to be used and abused as it is today. The SC has never ruled on it either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that the SC did rule on it back in 1976, but it needs a fresh look.

      Delete
    2. I thought the present version was put into place in the early 80's. But what do I know? I'm a product of the Atlanta City School System... my senior year in high school was the last all white year in GA (1962). My school majored in things like steeling hub caps (quiet a business back then) and rolling queers (more dangerous but much more lucrative.) I say, get all the anchor babies and make them earn their name.

      Delete
    3. The Navy term for an anchor is "mud hook" - do you remember that one from your tin can days? If we changed the term "anchor babies" to "mud hooks", I wonder if the left would finally be satisfied that we found a more politically correct term?

      Delete
  4. Past practices is right... and a through judicial review at SCOTUS would be appropriate!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe wait for the next President and a newer court when Ginzberg and others retire, first?

      Delete
  5. Look, don't worry. Islam is a religion of peace, so hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants will make America more peaceful. Surely that's worth the welfare?

    ReplyDelete
  6. We sure could buy a hell of a lot of buses for what keep spending on ILLEGALS.

    ReplyDelete

It's virtual - it's a mirage - it's life