MrEd Loc: Georgia

Anchor babies are a myth and as such should be sent back with their mothers to where ever they came from.




States must fight legal fiction called 'anchor babies'

By: Devvy
October 3, 2011

"If anyone's going to be deported, it's going to be you! ... Get out! We are the future. You're old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you – leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die. Right now, we're already controlling those e******ns, whether it's by violence or nonviolence. Through love of having children we're going to take over." --Augustin Cebada, information minister of Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles.

It is astounding how many elected public officials support i*****l a***ns who sneak into our house like criminals in the night, stealing jobs that belong to Americans and bankrupting cities and hospitals for "freebies" they have no right to receive, backed up by federal judges who should have been removed from the federal bench decades ago. In April 2008, the very popular, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, prostituted himself during a speech for v**es at an event sponsored by the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey by assuring his audience i*****l a***ns were not really here illegally, but were simply “undocumented.”

The 'unofficial' number of unemployed Americans is close to 25 MILLION. Those "undocumented" criminals Gov. Christie refers to are illegally holding 11.5 MILLION jobs that belong to Americans and naturalized citizens. Shame on you, Gov. Christie for thumbing your nose at our federal i*********n l*ws and encouraging even more criminals to break into our country. Roll out the welcome mat. Unemployment in New Jersey is holding at a steady 9.3%. Gov. Christie apparently doesn't care if jobs go to i*****l a***ns instead of legal citizens in his state. After all, they're simply "undocumented". Well, what can one expect from someone who believes the h**x called 'g****l w*****g'? Yes, Christie is on the record saying 'c*****e c****e' (the repackaged g****l w*****g baloney) is caused by human activity.

Gov. Rick Perry here in Texas is also pro i******s despite his carefully crafted stump speeches. Almost six years ago, Perry signed a bill into law to steal from the taxpayers of Texas to give tuition breaks to i*****l a***ns attending state universities. "Students" who have no right to even be on U.S. soil, much less take classroom seats in universities. V**ers beware: Rick Perry is not who you think he is; Perry's actions speak louder than his campaign rhetoric.

What exactly is this legal fiction called an 'anchor baby'? The theory is that a child born on U.S. soil of an i*****l a***n, regardless of country of origin, automatically becomes a U.S. citizen.

Nothing could be further from the t***h.

Those favoring i*****l a***ns sneaking into our country use the Fourteenth Amendment as justification for babies born on U.S. soil by mothers who have no legal right to be in our country. They are wrong.

Amendment XIV - U.S. Constitution

Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"Anchor babies" is simply a bastardization of the Fourteenth Amendment. Illegal means illegal. If the parent(s) have no legal right to be on US soil, their off spring are also illegal and must be deported if there is going to be any respect for our laws. I'm sorry for children of i******s, but they should blame their parents for sneaking across our borders, making them criminals in the eyes of the law.

The single largest number of i*****l a***ns (not "immigrants") sneaking across the border are from Mexico. What does their Constitution say - and thank you to Mothers Against Illegal Amnesty for bringing this to light last year:

Mexican Constitution - Chapter II

Article 30. Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:

A. Mexicans by birth are:

I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents:

II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;

Quoting one of the experts on the destruction of the illegal invasion and 'anchor babies', Frosty Wooldridge, wrote in one of his columns, J****** 6, 2011:

"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the Mexican i*****l a***n children born by i*****l a***n females in the US territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic and legal forces at his disposal to protect Mexicans living in the United States."

What Sedillo was saying is legally correct:

I*****l a***ns who smuggle themselves across our borders from Mexico are Mexican citizens and so are their off spring according to their Constitution, which is why he vows to protect "Mexicans living in the United States." All 'anchor babies' whose mother is a Mexican citizen should be stripped of US citizenship because legally the child never had the legal right to acquire such status.

Consider these words from Edward J. Erler, Professor of Political Science, California State University, San Bernardino, in his column (I hope you take the time to read all of it):

Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny

"In sum, this legacy of feudalism—which we today call birthright citizenship—was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd, then, to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of i*****l a***ns. Nor does the denial of birthright citizenship visit the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of i*****l a***ns born in the U.S. are not being denied anything to which they have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance—or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing."

He further points out: "But in any case, to say that children of legal aliens are entitled to citizenship is one thing; after all, their parents are in the country with the permission of the U.S. It is entirely different with i*****l a***ns, who are here without permission. Thus repeal of the current policy of birthright citizenship for the children of i*****l a***ns would not require a constitutional amendment."

Prof. Erler hit it out of the ball park: Children born on US soil of an i*****l a***n parent (or two parents) regardless of country of origin have no "right" to U.S. citizenship.

'Anchor Baby' Constitutional Amendment to Face Scrutiny in Congress - December 26, 2010 (FOX News)

"In a matter of weeks, Congress will go from trying to help young, i*****l i*******ts become legal to debating whether children born to parents who are in the country illegally should continue to enjoy automatic U.S. citizenship. Such a hardened approach -- and the rhetoric certain to accompany it -- should resonate with the GOP faithful who helped swing the House in Republicans' favor. But it also could further hurt the GOP in its endeavor to grab a large enough share of the growing Latino v**e to win the White House and the Senate majority in 2012. Legislation to test interpretations of the 14th Amendment as granting citizenship to the children of i*****l i*******ts will emerge early next session."

There is a rancid bill in Congress right now that should be rejected: H.R.140 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011. Why? Because it includes citizenship for i*****l a***ns who serve in our military. The Department of Defense is so hard up for IED fodder for the on-going illegal invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, they - with the blessing of the Outlaw Congress - have allowed i*****l a***ns to enlist. Currently there are about 29,000 i*****l a***ns serving in our military who should have been deported the minute their legal status was determined. Rep. Steve King's bill rewards violating our i*********n l*ws. That is not a solution, it's a magnet for more i******s to invade this country and enlist. The military provides a lot of perks paid for by you and me. I'm s**k of being fleeced to reward criminal behavior.

Forget about pandering to the "Latino v**e." I am so s**k of r****t politics shoved down our throats by minorities. This isn't about anyone's race. It's about our laws and the financial destruction heaped on this country as a result of allowing nearly 25 MILLION i******s into this country. Pile on the number of children birthed by illegal female aliens and the numbers become staggering. According to a 2010 study released by the Pew Hispanic Center, 79% of the 5.1 million children of criminals (i*****l a***ns) were born in the U.S. That means just over 4 million babies have been given U.S. citizenship when they should have been deported immediately with the mother. Since their mother had no right to be on U.S. soil, the baby has no "right" to U.S. citizenship.

That might sound hard nosed, but the carnage caused by i******s since Ronald Reagan opened the door to this massive invasion back in 1986 would fill a hundred newspapers. The financial destruction to the states of the Union heaped on the backs of hard working Americans and those who came to America legally and went through the process, runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars -- every year. Those 4 million i*****l a***n babies are recipients of your paycheck in the form of welfare and stealing the limited resources for education in the states.

Last year alone, the cost to taxpayers of LA County was whopping $600 MILLION dollars in welfare for children of i*****l a***ns. I guess it doesn't bother the people there getting fleeced in taxes to pay for all that welfare because they continue to elect governors who refuse to lock down the border and sympathizers of the invasion across the southern border of California to their legislature. Remember the quote at the top of this column.

The Republicans controlled Congress from January 1995 - December 2007. For eight of those years, there was a Republican president, Bush, Jr. This mess regarding 'anchor babies' should have been taken care of once and for all: Regardless of country of origin, if you drop a baby on U.S. soil and you are an i*****l a***n, your baby does not automatically become a U.S. citizen. Both will be deported. The easiest way to detect this is from hospitals reporting the legal status of a woman giving birth. Oh, can you hear the screeching already from the American C*******t Lawyers Union (ACLU), La Raza and other pro illegal, anti-American groups that i******s have rights!

No, they don't and the ACLU, LaRaza and other militant anti-American groups can yell and jump up and down all they want. Either we get serious about deporting i******s or continue to suffer even more destruction to our country. Lawlessness breeds lawlessness. The U.S. State Department and the Department of Homeland Security support giving U.S. citizenship to illegal babies. Not surprising considering who heads up both of those cabinets.

It's long past time the states of the Union stood up to the General Government on this issue. The states of the Union birthed the Constitution which created the U.S. Congress. They still hold the power.

As Prof. Erler stated above, there is no need for Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to deal with the issue of the 'anchor baby' s**m. Art. IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution says: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

Last year Arizona's state legislature tried to pass a bill dealing with this issue; it didn't pass. Many, including myself, were opposed to the language in the bill as it would have changed the language of the Fourteenth Amendment and that can only be done by a constitutional amendment. However, the states can write legislation that succinctly spells out the myth of 'anchor babies' being protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and their right to turn the mother over to ICE to be deported right along with the baby.

That won't happen unless the people of each state make this a major issue with their state legislature. That means all of us put the heat on our state reps and senators. It doesn't matter if your state legislature is out of session, send that snail mail letter and remind them next year is an e******n year. It's time to replace gutless legislators with real men and women who have the backbone to stand up to Washington, DC., the ACLU and America hating groups like LaRaza.

I recommend you read my columns below regarding i*****l a***ns:

1 - Victims Of I*****l A***ns & TSA -Sue Individuals Not Municipalities
2 - I*****l a***ns: declaring war on the enablers
3 - Mexican pirates vs. constitutional m*****a
4 - Federal judges vs. the will of the people -




Article can be found here; http://www.devvy.com/new_site/anchor-babies-100311.html

Links can be found on this site also to the mentioned articles in the above story.

saveamerica Loc: Texas

I agree with you Mr. Ed., it's all a racket.

Brian Devon

******
More neo-confederate drivel. States are not sovereign. It is not their domain to make or enforce i*********n l*w. Those are strictly the domain of the federal government. This is not the Confederate States of America in spite of what the red-neck know-nothings think.

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

Apatoo Nee Nee, твојот татко Сатаната ќе го осудија
tvoJot tatko Satanata ḱe go osudiJa

The Dutchman

Exactly!!

The Dutchman

dbleach3

Suggest you read The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. The states only agreed to the Constitution after it was agreed to add the Bill of Rights and sovereignty for the individual states. In the 227 years since the founding the Supremes have just about ignored state sovereignty beginning with John Marshall.

Brian Devon

******
The reality is that the "sovereignty" issue was disposed of by the Union's soundly defeating the Confederate States of America. Case closed. Contrary to the far right's delusions, armed treason does not equal patriotism. It is a capital crime, in case you wing-nuts were absent when it was discussed in public school.

The Dutchman

dbleach3 wrote:
Suggest you read The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. The states only agreed to the Constitution after it was agreed to add the Bill of Rights and sovereignty for the individual states. In the 227 years since the founding the Supremes have just about ignored state sovereignty beginning with John Marshall.

And Brenda devil cried, and cried!