State legislators to challenge ‘anchor babies’

One of the members of the group is Georgia state Rep. Tim Bearden, R-Villa Rica. In other words, coming soon to a state Legislature near you….

And this is a suprise ?

• Link
• Report this comment

Regardless of how you stand on this issue,

it serves Washington well.

As they pilfer your family and future.

• Link
• Report this comment

First off, they’re not “anchor babies.” They are citizens of the United States of America. That’s it. End of argument.

And as long as we’re defining our terms, their parents are not “Illegals.” They are human beings.

• Link
• Report this comment

Numb-skulls like Rep. Tim Bearden have to pretend to be productive since he is incapaple of solving any real issues. It works everytime as republicans who are still PO’d at civil rights and slavery fall for it.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef nix, really, that’s the best argument you’ve got? How about we start some place around, oh I don’t know, 1776!

• Link
• Report this comment

night Train

Well, at least if we went for 1776 I’d get to stay…all of ancestors were here then…

• Link
• Report this comment

Excuse me ……….. “illegal”

• Link
• Report this comment

OK, who cares? here’s one for the xenopboes and nativists; what part of “born OR naturalized in the United States” do you not understand? I’m just darn happy the Founding Fathers didn’t have an * font on their laser printer (* ‘escept anchor babies’) which also begs the question; ‘please direct us to the Article or Amendment, which deals with anchor babies.

• Link
• Report this comment

Perhaps they’ll just have to make do without a long form, much to Scout’s chagrin. Either that or they’ll simply have to be aborted since they cannot have a birth certificate.

• Link
• Report this comment

We are strict constructionists regarding the Constitution, until we are not. Right Republiconservateatardibertarians?? The document was not meant to be “interpreted” with changing times, unless we do it.

• Link
• Report this comment

JAY

It just sort of makes mine and your comments apropos to what…

paleo

Right. And I really don’t think the solons want to head down this slippery slope…

• Link
• Report this comment

Night Train – second that. And there should be some sort of path to citizenship, work visa, or expulsion. The citizenship and work visa path would entail significant fines, penalties, a criminal record check, and paying back taxes (if possible to estimate). Like a $20,000 penalty that would be repaid over 10 years.

Penalties work for the uninsured on Health Care. Seems they’re appropriate here as well.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Republican lawmakers in 15 states Tuesday announced a nationwide effort to change the way the 14th Amendment is interpreted and stop granting citizenship to babies born in the USA to illegal immigrants.”

Good! This, along w/ banning illegals from colleges, should be common sense.

• Link
• Report this comment

Night Train, do you read your copy before you click ’submit’? what you “think” isn’t important. I “think” is was a mistake to invade Iraq. I “think” the Bush White House should have paid greater attention to the August 2001 “bin Ladend determined to strike U.S.” NSC memo. seems to me there is nothing to “grant”. once born, they are U.S. citizens. there is nothing to “grant”. now, maybe they have to return to Mexico or Honduras, or Belize to be “granted” citizenship in the nations mom and dad call “home”.

• Link
• Report this comment

md, but what about when the law clearly identifies those “born… in the United States” as citizens? seems there are some who want to ‘re-write the law” – in which case those born here sans American parents would be circumventing the law.

• Link
• Report this comment

Any person willing to work and pay their taxes should be granted automatic citizenship, and vice versa.

• Link
• Report this comment

“It’s barbaric. It’s Unamerican. It’s positively French.” –Mark Twain

Sarkozy and Adolf Hitler would be proud…

• Link
• Report this comment

larry
If the Irishman has a good tan, then s/he’s also a good Republican!

• Link
• Report this comment

SEE ARTICLE ON CORPORATE TAXES, OFFSHORE CORPORATE MONEY, AND OUR CRUMMY ECONOMY.

You can thank our US Government for stupid tax policy. These CEO’s are not exactly the fat cat conservative type either.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704469004575533880328930598.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

• Link
• Report this comment

And, just for argument’s sake, what if the “anchor baby” has a United States citizen parent? Do we play Solomon, cut the lil bastid in half and send part of him/her the the netherworld?

• Link
• Report this comment

If it is acceptable by Buffett, then it is acceptable by me. Of course, I am speaking of increased taxation for the wealthy, as he chooses to define such. To say otherwise might be misconstrued as wealth envy.

• Link
• Report this comment

The cons in France and Germany are attacking immigrants too.

Guess we have to fight fas cism again.

• Link
• Report this comment

I have friends who work in Quarantine and they tell me that they see this situation regularly: heavily pregnant women flying into the country just to stay in the United States for a few weeks and give birth.

Then they fly back to their home country with their newest little U.S. citizen in their arms! They always make sure to obtain a U.S. passport for the kid before they leave.

These are not the “poorest of the poor” sneaking over the border and risking their lives. These people are smart, savvy, and totally manipulating the system. Am I supposed to have a bleeding heart for them?

• Link
• Report this comment

Bob Neal. Bob Neal was Elvis’s first Manager

• Link
• Report this comment

As I understand the 14th. Amendment it was originally intended to prevent declaring former slaves non-citizens and deporting them to Africa. Birthright citizenship serves no worthwhile purpose today and only provides illegals another way to game our system as they’ve been allowed to do for too long. Don’t believe that, just go down to the Woman Centers at metro hospitals and observe how many illegal expectant mothers come through and are immediately admitted as Medicaid patients. Their new born babies go on Medicaid too right after birth. Time to do away with this scam on America.

• Link
• Report this comment

Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.” In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

• Link
• Report this comment

First off, they’re not “anchor babies.” They are citizens of the United States of America.

josef,

You seem to making a distinction and one you seem fairly indignant about, but these children being considered US citizens is what makes them anchor babies.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If they paid taxes as everyone else does then they might be accepted into our society as one of the gang — a fellow serfer.”

Fellow serfer…good one.

But alot of them do pay taxes like everyone else — they just don’t receive the benefits like everyone else (SS in this case)

• Link
• Report this comment

Penny Lane, OK sister. please esplane (Desi Arnez/Ricky Ricardo dialect) to us what a “heavily pregnant” woman? and if your “friend” (wink, wink) works for DHS, how are these cagy, savvy, heavily pregnant women getting through Customs? last time I checked there are no delivery rooms on the international concourse. if the mothers of these children are entering the U.S. legally, and the child is “born” (ezact word) in the U.S., the children are U.S. citizens (and I would hope mom secures a passport before re-patriating).

• Link
• Report this comment

RW

And? Like I said, I’m not any too happy about all the Yankees down this way, but then I’m lunatic fringe on that issue. And don’t come in with that argument about one nation and all…after all, many of these so-called anchor babies are being born in Aztlan…

• Link
• Report this comment

Thank andygrd at 4:24. Well said.

Mr Bookman?… Crickets are chirping….

• Link
• Report this comment

On topic – No other country in the world works this way. Perhaps we need to change the 14th amendment….

You can’t change this ammendment. It states unequivically that “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.”

I’d love to see them try though and speaking of C. Thomas, I’d lOVE to see how he and Scalia wold vote if it made it all the way to the SC.

• Link
• Report this comment

Off topic, but I’d like to dedicate this to Christine O’Donnell:

http://www.lolcats.com/view/27355

• Link
• Report this comment

larry
Like I say, where’s the cut off date….?

• Link
• Report this comment

JoNix-

“Okay, now what if the native country of the mother does not recognize the child born on foreign soil as a citizen?”

He or She is a citizen of the world.
John Paul Jones got it right.

The rights of man.

• Link
• Report this comment

typo…. Mr. Soros is not an American…….

• Link
• Report this comment

RW
Well, while we’re at it, let’s just interpret the 14th to refer to 3/5 citizenip, okay? This is not a shoulda issue.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment” – BHO, May 1, 2010

You are STILL using this downright LIE and misinformed quote!?!?!! Even though you KNOW that is nothing more than a lie — that the quote was taken out of context? Are you really Limbaugh in disguise? Truth does not live in a republican mouth. Debbie 2010

United States President Barack Obama, during a speech today at Hampton University, criticized the use of gadgets like Apple’s iPad and iPod touch and called these devices a “distraction” and “diversion” for the nation , specially for the students. He further said in his speech, to the students of Hampton University, that information as entertainment is becoming more as a burden to the young minds rather than an empowerment tool.

He further said: You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter.

http://www.ithinkdiff.com/obama-calls-ipad-a-distraction-and-diversion_8934/

• Link
• Report this comment

josef, you know I have no compunction about stating my firmly held beliefs and in this instance, I will reaffirm them.

Listen up neo-cons and judicial activist wannabes, regarding the United States Constitution, keep your filthy hands off of that sacred document.

• Link
• Report this comment

md, please (PLEASE) do not invoke the “time machine” rule. and you know why? because I will tell you that if those responsible for the 14th Amendment needed a time machine or shaman to “predict” or “envision” the future, they should have summoned some American gumption (like Ben Franklin, who invented lots of stuff) and invented the time machine. you seem to forget that the reason we needed a 14th Amendment was ’cause the orginal document failed to “grant citizenship” (or any rights) to slaves. I return to my comments on CT’s blog; “property rights trump individual rights” – always have and always will. 14th Amendent “granted citizenship” to Americans who were until then “private property” (Dred Scott case). mirror, mirror. I do not understand your post. again, as I argued on CT’s blog, it is the employers who are not (deductiing and) paying taxes. while the ‘revenue’ sent to the Treasury Department originates (in part) from the employee’s income (wage), it it the empoyer’s responsibility to ‘do the math’ and send the check (quarterly, I beleive) to Uncle Sam, so he can provide food stamps, medical care and other services to these illegals.

• Link
• Report this comment

People will never be happy if they always worry about someone else getting a better deal than themselves, quite a childish approach to living your life. Be unhappy then.

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet

And I daresay a certain relative of yours might have something to say about stripping of citizenship, too…

• Link
• Report this comment

JAY

And I would imagine Soros might have an opinion on this particular issue it would behoove the rest of us to listen to, too…

• Link
• Report this comment

Jefferson @ 4:41: You ROCK! BTW, your memorial in D.C. is my fave!

I don’t have a strong opinion on this issue. Here’s the more important issue, IMO: Regardless of place of birth, if you’re going to drive on THESE roads, then you must (a) learn how to bleeping drive, (b) learn the rules of our road and be able to read the signs, (c) maintain your “vehicle” to proper safety standards, and (d) have car insurance like the rest of us.

Safe roads! Let’s all get behind that.

• Link
• Report this comment

You can’t change this amendment.

Any amendment can be changed by passing another amendment. The chances of that happening on any issue are pretty remote but it is possible. (Prohibition is the only one I can think of, right off). That’s how the Framers set it up.

• Link
• Report this comment

You pro-illegal types make me wanna puke. A disgusting lot you are !

• Link
• Report this comment

That term anchor babies is an insult to our fellow citizens

Is this where I’m supposed to restate the “insult”/citizen argument? Or as the song said, you can’t have one without the other.

/Gotta run out for a bit…catch y’all in an hour or so

• Link
• Report this comment

josef, I contend that this is the very type of hyper-reactionary nonsense why we MOTs vote so overwhelmingly against the faux conservatives.

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet, I agree with you in spirit (lower case s), but please remove the word “sacred” from your rant. I don’t want to confuse Christine O’Donnell (anymore than she already is) as far as the separation of church and state and the First Amendment. as I said, I’m cool with everything else (see my “time machine” reference).

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet

Truth be told, though I like to poke at you on this one, you are right! And this pack would do a hunh if you asked them about Herscehl Grynszpan and Kristallnacht…It sickens me to the core…

• Link
• Report this comment

Most that pay attention realize this attempt to change and/or eliminate the 14th Amendment is designed to “take back our country” mantra of the so-called conservatives.

One has to wonder what excuse would they use to keep the territories ceded to native Americans by treaty and territories taken and still under control, namely, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands?

Come on so-called conservatives, get your excuses together to help us understand what needs to be done to address this issue.I

• Link
• Report this comment

uhhhhhhhh…. the fruitloop at 5pm on FNC just started today with George Soros…..

OUCH !

• Link
• Report this comment

jackie

Unmentionable says unless you can show a CDIB card, you’re undocumented!

• Link
• Report this comment

Forgot the most obvious one, Washington, DC. They are taxed and considered American citizens but have no voting House member or Senators. All these “illegals” need to be immediately deported.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, my buddy Jim Earl says he just wishes they’d shut up about this anchor baby thing. There’s thousands of us right here in GA that come from people that sneaked into the country and was never citizens. So if this thing passes, none of the people that come after them can ever be citizens. I’d sure hate to see a Redneck Roundup where they load a bunch of us in the back of a pickup and dump us over the border along with the real illegals. Heck, I don’t even speak Mexican. Maybe they’d take a Republican Party donation card as proof, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Have a good night everybody.

• Link
• Report this comment

Whine This one’s 4 yo!!!

I found the PERFECT gift for you for X-Mas!!

Or, if you don’t like that one, here’s another one just 4 you!

ENJOY!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Jackie

What gets me is that automatic citizenship to anyone born on the soil IS a conservative value!

• Link
• Report this comment

Boner

No Germans! They’re all n a z i s!

• Link
• Report this comment

Canada has “jus soli” also. For the sake of my (unborn) kids economic future, we may be headed to Canada when birth time comes. He/she will need another option in case the US is headed down the Greek path….

• Link
• Report this comment

For info:

http://askville.amazon.com/United-States-countries-offer-citizenship-birth-aka-birthright/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7563352

• Link
• Report this comment

but do you actually believe 20 million undocumented workers have presented their employers with bogus ID and SS cards?

I’m actually more inclined to believe that those hiring these 20 million workers simply do not have sufficient work annually for each worker to exceed the $600 reporting threshold, year after year after year after year. Otherwise, the law would have reflected a different threshold.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef, speaking fractions, have you seen Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story? a very funny Spinal Tap meets Walk the Line bio-pic about a rock n roll pioneer named Dewey Cox. anyway, as a child he cuts his brother in half (by accident), for which his father never forgave him. after the doctor annouces the youngster’s death, the dad says; ‘you’re not half the boy Nate was. you’re not even half the boy the top half of Nate was after you cut him in half…” to which Dewey asks; ’so you’re saying I’m not 1/4 the boy Nate was?”

• Link
• Report this comment

weeeeeewwwwweeeee

• Link
• Report this comment

JUST TO MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT…

The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour
(September 15, 1935) Entirely convinced that the purity of German blood is essential to the further existence of the German people, and inspired by the uncompromising determination to safeguard the future of the German nation, the Reichstag has unanimously resolved upon the following law, which is promulgated herewith:
Section 1
1. Marriages between Jews and citizens (German: Staatsangehörige) of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.
2. Proceedings for annulment may be initiated only by the Public Prosecutor.
Section 2
Extramarital sexual intercourse between Jews and subjects of the state of Germany or related blood is forbidden.
(Supplementary decrees set Nazi definitions of racial Germans, Jews, and half-breeds or Mischlinge — see the latter entry for details and citations and Mischling Test for how such decrees were applied. Jews could not vote or hold public office under the parallel “citizenship” law.)
Section 3
Jews will not be permitted to employ female citizens under the age of 45, of German or kindred blood, as domestic workers.
Section 4
1. Jews are forbidden to display the Reich and national flag or the national colours.
2. On the other hand they are permitted to display the Jewish colours. The exercise of this right is protected by the State.
Section 5
1.A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 1 will be punished with hard labour.
2/. A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 2 will be punished with imprisonment or with hard labour.
3.A person who acts contrary to the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 will be punished with imprisonment up to a year and with a fine, or with one of these penalties.
Section 6
The Reich Minister of the Interior in agreement with the Deputy Führer and the Reich Minister of Justice will issue the legal and administrative regulations required for the enforcement and supplementing of this law.
Section 7
The law will become effective on the day after its promulgation; Section 3, however, not until January 1, 1936

• Link
• Report this comment

paleo
That was a good one!

• Link
• Report this comment

josef nix – Oh lord. Just because someone doesn’t want to legally permit anyone born in the US but that doesn’t have US parents to not be eligible for citizenship implies we’re going to be Nazi Germany? Even though the other 185 out of 200 countries in the world only permit citizenship if one of your parents is from the same country.

Radical!!!!!! Scary! Run away…..

• Link
• Report this comment

The saddest part of this is when Bush, McCain and a handful of the more cogent in the neo-con ranks – at least on this singular issue – tried to pass a great compromise on a VERY complicated and complex issue – a pathway to citizenship.

But the rabid Republicans went batshiite crazy.

Nothing short of mass-deportations for the illegal workers and COMPLETE impunity for the employers will be tolerated.

No wonder we are so screwed…

• Link
• Report this comment

Will illegal aliens also be required to purchase health insurance?

Not sure. Does it depend on whether the businesses who employ them illegally provide it or not?

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet, no it does not.

• Link
• Report this comment

but Li’l Barry B, also turns out employers are required to confirm an employee’s eligibility to work in the United States. and even if they knowningly hire an undocumented worker, they are still required to deduct payroll taxes and send the taxes to the Treasury Department (even if to do otherwise puts more unreported/untaxed income in his/her pocket)

• Link
• Report this comment

Well good for those businesses that employ illegal workers and don’t provide that benefit, Lil’ BB.

One more case where they profit from violating federal and state laws…

• Link
• Report this comment

jm

And don’t forget that the Germans were not alone in passing of such laws, either…all I’m saying is, if we’re going to go there, then why hold back? This is exactly where such lines of thought lead to, just ask the Roma in Sarkozy’s France…

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet: One more case where they profit from violating federal and state laws.
————————

Perhaps you should take this up with the chief law enforcement officer for the U.S.

• Link
• Report this comment

Look, folks, I’m not arguing whether or not the 14th should or should not be repealed or amended…I’m saying that when you go to stripping CLASSES of citizenship already granted, you’re headed down a road you don’t want to go…as it stands now these so-called anchor babies are FULL United States citizens…what you propose to do with future ones, well…we’ll see…

• Link
• Report this comment

“14th Amendent “granted citizenship” to Americans who were until then “private property””

As I said, it was written at a time when folks were already here – by no choice of their own I might add.

Why do all you pro illegal types never answer the question about those that aren’t here and waiting in line patiently??

And you do know that if this wave is granted amnesty like the last wave, you can kiss any semblance of order bye-bye by those that are actually trying to do things the proper way…..don’t you????

• Link
• Report this comment

“Memo LEAKED! Beck, Koch bros, Chamber coordinated with Banks & Insurers on 2010 election strategy”tp

Watch the numbers flip as the cons get discouraged and stay home.

cons got punked.

• Link
• Report this comment

md

Oh, sc*ew that “proper” line…we certainly weren’t too worried about that when we needed them to do the dirt work, now were we? Wink, wink. Now that we don’t need or want them anymore, round ‘em and herd ‘em out, rawhide! Semblance of order? Not for a long time has there been.

And for the record, I’m probably to the right of most of y’all on close the borders…

• Link
• Report this comment

“Why do all you pro illegal types never answer the question about those that aren’t here and waiting in line patiently??”

Because when they are born here, they are already here?

• Link
• Report this comment

Lil” BB, very clever excusing the misnamed conservatives for thirty years of failures.

I told you neo-cons he was one of you. A corporate water-carrier that was going to change next to NOTHING regarding the hyper-corrupted equation involving Washington and Wall Street.

But you wouldn’t listen. You bought into that nonsensical, frightened claptrap that he was a liberal!!!

But even worse than your confusion is how those poor, suffering souls on Wall Street must feel!

Imagine the rude awakening they got when, even after they funded his campaign more so than McCain’s, they discovered he was a SOCIALIST!

You guys really do make this too easy…

• Link
• Report this comment

“does that only apply when you are disagree with law”

It applies when it is unconstitutional.

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet, please show me where I didn’t listen, sport.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Idiot Messiah isn’t so much a socialist as he is someone who is actively working to weaken America economically, militarily, and diplomatically.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone
@ 6:03

That is the way it generally plays out. Since many of these children have older siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins or what have you who are either citizens or here legally, these children frequently stay with those relatives. Many countries do not recognize these children as citizens and they are denied education in their parents home countries. Many of them do not speak the language of their parents home countries and the parents see it in the child’s best interest to remain in the country of their birth citizenship.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA

October 20th, 2010
5:59 pm
“does that only apply when you are disagree with law”

It applies when it is unconstitutional.
+++++++
The court decides what is constitutional and what is not constitutional. When passing laws until someone challenges them in court we may have an idea if it will be ruled consitution but we can’t declare such a thing until the court rules.

I ask again McCain-Fiengold was ruled unconstitutional was McCain and Fiengold subverting the constitution. Most conservatives would have argued that this was an obvious violation of the constitution.

• Link
• Report this comment

“have a child should that child be granted US citizenship?”

Yep.

• Link
• Report this comment

If they want to change the way America grants citizenship to children, they should just start the process of amending the constitution. That is all they need to do. If the constitution is changed, then foreign children born on Amercan soil will not be citizens. Just do it the way it needs to be done.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
6:09 pm
Doggone
@ 6:03

. Many countries do not recognize these children as citizens and they are denied education in their parents home countries.
+++++++++
Nationality by birth
The constitution declares that Mexicans by birth—that is, natural born Mexicans—are:[1]

those individuals born in Mexican territory regardless of the nationality of their parents;
those individuals born abroad if one or both of their parents was a Mexican national born in Mexican territory;
those individuals born abroad if one or both of their parents was a Mexican national by naturalization; and
those individuals born in Mexican merchant or Navy ships or Mexican merchant or Army aircrafts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_nationality_law

• Link
• Report this comment

Independent

October 20th, 2010
6:13 pm
If the constitution is changed, then foreign children born on Amercan soil will not be citizens. Just do it the way it needs to be done.
++++++++
And that’s how abortion went from being illegal to a right protected by the constitution. I agree with you but that is really not how this country operates.

• Link
• Report this comment

“than they could get it amended to include that idiotic DOMA tripe…”

Or to make it legal for Ahnold to run for President

• Link
• Report this comment

Yes they are Nix.

• Link
• Report this comment

I do find it interesting that so many are on the side of the law when it comes to interpreting the 14th, but have no problem throwing out same said law when it comes to illegal entry.

How exactly does that work????

And…..how is it that for the past 8-10 years, both “sides” campaign on “seal the borders” then “blah, blah, blah” with the “blah, blah, blah” part the only debatable part, yet the borders aren’t sealed??

• Link
• Report this comment

Okay, let’s load ‘em up and ship ‘em off…logistics anyone? How? How much will it cost? How many restaurants will be put out of business? What will be the price increase on that hotel room when it’s the old, established families being paid to clean that john and fry that burger?

• Link
• Report this comment

“As it stands now the child being a citizen can sponsor his/her parents”

yeah, that’s the ticket for an “anchor” BABY. Just contact a lawyer, right?

• Link
• Report this comment

If you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States then you, by law, do not have to obey the laws of the US. You must be treated as a foreign diplomat as there are no other provisions in US law. And if you are not subject to the laws of the US then no need to pay income taxes or FICA, etc, etc, etc.

This is why the Supreme Court says everyone who is not a foreign diploma is subject to it’s, the Supreme Court’s, jurisdiction.

But there are enough people out there who will buy this and vote accordingly.

• Link
• Report this comment

If I’m not mistaken the child being granted citizenship can sponsor their parents, but only once they’ve reached the age of 21 and are earning at least 125% of the poverty level.

• Link
• Report this comment

RW
@ 6:45

That is correct.

• Link
• Report this comment

wrong doggie, it’s a ticket for the parent/parents. You should understand the legal machinations before commenting. If you don’t know that illegals have learned very well how to game our system you’re living in La La land.

• Link
• Report this comment

md
@ 6:50

And on that, I am agreed….that’s why I say when it comes down to it, I’m probably to the right of many on the matter of sealing the borders…that first, THEN we can deal with the mess we’ve already made…we’re putting the cart before the horse, IMHO…

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’m probably to the right of many on the matter of sealing the borders…that first, THEN we can deal with the mess we’ve already made…we’re putting the cart before the horse, IMHO…”

Funny (not really) that most, including Congress, agree the borders need to be sealed….yet nothing………

Sounds like that would be the easiest bill to get through…………yet, nothing………….

• Link
• Report this comment

Sounds like that would be the easiest bill to get through

Everybody has to add on their goodies

• Link
• Report this comment

“Not to worry, our Homeland Security is on it!”

Oh joy – I see an Iran Czar and a Venezuela Czar in our near future………….

• Link
• Report this comment

md

We send our sons and daughters halfway around the world for highly questionable ends (oil?) and leave our own frontiers and ports of entry all but sporting a welcome sign…

• Link
• Report this comment

“All this was supposedly taken care of in the 80’s but it didn’t work out that way. ”

Like an alcoholic trying to stop drinking……exponentially gets worse unless he goes cold turkey.

This sequel was set up by the first version………..can’t wait for movie number 3…

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s amazing that some on here are so naive or perhaps steeped in their left wing ideology that they’re oblivious to the fact that our immigration laws are being broken and or gamed all the time. Often aided and abetted by our own federal, state and local government.

• Link
• Report this comment

“We send our sons and daughters halfway around the world for highly questionable ends (oil?) and leave our own frontiers and ports of entry all but sporting a welcome sign…”

I agree………….but I’m a realist on the oil……take it out of the equation, and what does our economy look like????? My crystal ball says more suffering by the millions compared to now.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef @ 7:07

I’m sure remember, along about that time Gwinnett county was booming and had a worker shortage. Fast food workers there were making $7-$8 an hour which was well above other areas (and minimum wage of the time). You’d think with a shortage of workers, that wages rising would be the free market working. Couldn’t have that though, could they?

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone

Don’t need no wall…a soldier every 100 yards would do the trick…the wall was just a waste of time…

md

Oh, I’m no fool on that one…I didn’t much care for Daddy Bush, but he was up front and honest about the first Gulf War…our national interests were with the oil, and Saddam was threatening that, liberation of Kuwait was just a nice sidebar…

• Link
• Report this comment

I thought we also had law that said you cannot profit from your crime. If entering illegally is a crime, and if a US citizenship is such a good thing, how can we allow people to profit from the illegal act of entering? That is like allowing a bank robber to keep the proceeds of his crime!

Seal the border. Reinterpret the 14th amendment to say mother has to be here as a lawful permanent resident (not on a student or tourist visa, for example). Begin interdicting unlawful aliens at ever opportunity (hospital, school, etc). Allow a limited number to stay who can prove: no additional offenses against the law, learned English and can demonstrate it, had no problems with kids in school (ie parents participated, came to conferences), repay any medicaid funds, pay a fine, show ability to support self and family, etc.

Too bad we can’t have the same requirements for our native (US of A American) kids’ families as well!

Repatriate all others and charge their native country a portion of the aid we give them each year as a way to encourage them to seal their own borders.

Kids who are considered American citizens prior to the clarification of the 14th Amendment can stay, but their parents must be repatriated if they cannot meet the burden of proof above.

• Link
• Report this comment

Whether or not George Soros is a US citizen is irrelevant (he is). He hates the freedom of American capitalism yet he’s made his billions in (much of it foreign) hedge funds. Now he’s giving a million (beans to him) to a liberal special interest organization called Media Splatters…err..Matters. Nobody knows the origin of that million in donation, do they? Nary a peep from the left. Liberals are only worried about transparencies when it concerns conservatives and Republicans.

The idea the Soros donation is transparent is beyond laughable. He’s given millions to the Tides Foundation, a liberal organization known for obscuring sources from the left. It’s also exempt from taxes, mind you. Further, Soros was also heavily involved with setting up the Center for American Progress (Regress is more like it) think tank and many other like-minded liberal organizations.

Oh but the left is all up in arms on Chamber of Commerce donors! Well, who are we kidding here. The Democrat run Washington is cooking books, lying about it, and thinking it can get away with anything. Enron executives did the same thing didn’t they. But those guys are in jail. If corporations were run like the government, they’d have been extinct a long time ago.

Pelosi not running for House Speaker speaks volumes. Rahmbo is gone. Democrats are distancing themselves from their support of Obamacare and even Obama himself. You just have to love the political season.

• Link
• Report this comment

paleoneocarlinist: Our local largest employer, a chicken processing plant, has a person employed whose job it is to “make folks look legal” so they can pass through everify. Everify matches names and SS numbers, but not names and actual people. So someone can show an ID (easily available) and put their picture with my name and SS number and they pass the check and can be employed.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
6:22 pm
Moderate
I am aware of the Mexican laws. Where did I say I was referring to Mexicans? Not to be overly cantankerous here, but I’d say that this points out that who we’re REALLY talking about are Mexicans…
+++++++++++
My point was only to show that your statement that people born here to parents illegally could not go back to their country of orgin is generally incorrect. The best way to do that was to show how at least for a 56% or majority your statement is false. I am sure the number is higher since most countries have similiar law. If it is true that we are “REALLY talking about are Mexicans…” proves to be even more misleading then your statement would seem to be completely false. However, since 44% of illegal immigrants are not from Mexico I think the generalization that illegal immigrants are Mexican would be incorrect.

To native Americans we are ALL illegal immigrants.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, living in miami I can tell you what they do. Right around their due date they fly into miami and go to jackson memorial hospital where the child is delivered free of charge and has the added bonus of being an instant citizen. They then get back on the plane and go back home. Now honestly, does that baby deserve citizenship?

josef

Very good analysis of home schooling through your experience. I don’t have a problem with it per se but I really don’t believe in it. Private or public school, learning with your peers is both unique and challenging. Many parents fear that their child will be corrupted by public school. That may be true if you aren’t doing your job as a parent and keeping them active and involved all through secondary school. Tough love, it works. When it’s time to move onto college, then take a step back and let them find their way with guidance and support. While keeping children home and sheltered has many positives, there are many more colors on the canvas in the real world outside the box.

• Link
• Report this comment

“a soldier every 100 yards would do the trick”

Uh huh…and one well-placed bullet will leave a 600 foot gap in your “wall”

• Link
• Report this comment

“when you can just illegally enter the country with a pregnant wife and eventually reap all the benefits of being an American citizen without the hassle?”

Well, you can’t. Next question?

• Link
• Report this comment

“At the end of the day I think 14A will have to be legislatively amended – doubtful in view of the strong support illegal immigration seems to enjoy in this country”

but the 14th amendment does not address illegal immigrants, only legal American citizens.

• Link
• Report this comment

“My problem is what is the point of having an immigration policy with quotas, rules, paperwork and waiting, when you can just illegally enter the country with a pregnant wife and eventually reap all the benefits of being an American citizen without the hassle?”

I’d lay odds that the ones doing the waiting are sitting up straight and taking notice…………what is good for the goose is good for the gander so to speak.

soco can let us know when he starts seeing a large amount of pregnant women on visitor visas, then we know the onslaught has begun.

• Link
• Report this comment

Uh huh…and one well-placed bullet will leave a 600 foot gap in your “wall”

Why, what you’re doing is declarin’ war on these YouKnighted States of Americas. Yup. I like that too. Where’s my holsters? I can almost smell the saltpeter in the air.

• Link
• Report this comment

“What part do you not understand?

How much you are willing to pay to find them and deport them. Keeping in mind that we’re near broke and would have to borrow even more money to pay for it, thus increasing the national debt.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Uh huh…and one well-placed bullet will leave a 600 foot gap in your “wall””

Not for very long though – one bullet would bring in an awful lot of po’ed troops to fill that gap.

• Link
• Report this comment

“when you can just illegally enter the country with a pregnant wife and eventually reap all the benefits of being an American citizen without the hassle?”

Well, you can’t. Next question?”

Not to intrude on Mick’s turf, but he is correct. The operative word he used is “eventually”.

That is what this whole conversation is about…………

• Link
• Report this comment

This is very interesting re: Causes of Homosexuality:

http://viewzone2.com/phthalatesx.html

1) “It’s time to stop all the bulls**t about being gay — homosexual, whether it’s a man or a woman. There’s enough solid scientific and medical evidence now to say affirmatively that this is NOT a matter of choice. It’s how a person is born. They can’t change it, they can’t take the “gay cure” and even accepting Jesus as their personal saviour cannot convert a gay person to a straight one.

Note: Maybe not but one must separate being a homosexual from the “act”, separate a heterosexaul adulterer from the “act” or a pedophile from the “act”. Thought is one thing ……….. the act is another. Thinking about robbing a bank is not illegal absent some over act. Doing it is.

2) Did you know? Researchers using brain scans have found new evidence that biology — and not environment — is at the core of sexual orientation. Scientists at the Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA that gay men and straight women share similar traits — most notably in the size of their brains and the activity of the amygdala — an area of the brain tied to emotion, anxiety and aggression. The same is true for heterosexual men and lesbians.

Study author, neurologist Ivanka Savic-Berglund, says such characteristics would develop in the womb or in early infancy, meaning that psychological or environmental factors played little or no role.

“This is yet another in a long series of observations showing there’s a biological reason for sexual orientation. It’s not just a reflection of people’s behavior, nor is it a choice, nor is it something in their rearing environment. [The study] shows that it’s something that people are born with.” — Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the National Institutes of Health.
The researchers used MRIs to determine the volume and shapes of the brains of 90 volunteers — 25 straight and 20 gay members of each sex. They found that the straight men and gay women had asymmetrical brains; that is, the cerebrum (the largest part of the brain, which is responsible for thought, sensory processing, movement and planning) was larger on the right hemisphere of the brain than on the left. In contrast, they found that women and gay men had symmetrical cerebrums.

Because testosterone produces the masculine brain, researchers are concerned that fetal exposure to anti-androgens such as phthalates — which are pervasive in the environment — has the potential to alter masculine brain development, said lead author Shanna H. Swan, Ph.D., professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, director of the URMC Center for Reproductive Epidemiology, and an expert in phthalates.

BOTTOM LINE: No plastics for homosexuas.

Case cloded.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Not to intrude on Mick’s turf, but he is correct. The operative word he used is “eventually”.”

Eventually? Meaning that an “anchor” baby has to grow up, be at the age of 21 (per a previous post) and then sponsor his parents…who have had to be keeping low heads and keeping their illegal status hidden for, oh, say 22 years or so? If they can do that, what do they need an “anchor” baby for?

• Link
• Report this comment

“but I do not think it should be a requirement for citizenship as we have no official national language.”

Not too sure about that when English is the “unofficial” language of business, and the “official” language of air traffic control worldwide…………….

• Link
• Report this comment

Uh huh…and one well-placed bullet will leave a 600 foot gap in your “wall”

Or several well placed bribes, which was one of the problems with the Great Wall of China—walk around or bribe your way through.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To all of you round ‘em up and send ‘em backers: How much are you willing to spend, on a per head basis to accomplish this task?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Reap all the benefits without a hassle” “Well you can’t, next question” you can, next question.

• Link
• Report this comment

“you can, next question.”

How does having an “anchor” baby confer the status of citizenship on the parents? How about YOU take a shot at my question…which no one has yet tackled: What does an “anchor” baby ANCHOR?

• Link
• Report this comment

” will bring in that many more who will more than likely shoot first and ask questions later ”

Uh, huh. do the math. If they are set 100 yards apart, that meants the first 2 are each 100 yards from the center of the hole. And the next two are each an additional 100 yards, the next two an ADDTIONAL 100 yards. In the time it takes each pair to cover the ground to the center…how far can the illegals move away from them at right angles?

And even if the remaining soldiers angle towards where the crossers ought to be..they’ll be chasing a target they might not actually be able to see.

And anyway, any intelligent crossers is going to up their odds by waiting until night.

• Link
• Report this comment

I am very willing to be enlightened on the anchor baby issue, so all feel free to take shots. As I understand it there are about 300,000 anchor babies born in the US every year. Some estimates are higher. Again, as I understand it, these babies are automatically US citizens who qualify for benefits such as medicaid, etc. If nothing else, this seems to create a fairly large drain on our shrinking resources. Is this correct so far?

• Link
• Report this comment

md
I’m not at all saying that fluency in English is not the key to success, but in the absence of an official language, putting it as a requirement for citizenship doesn’t hold up…I don’t particularly support an official national language, but I’m not dead set against it either…but until such time as there is one…

• Link
• Report this comment

“If nothing else, this seems to create a fairly large drain on our shrinking resources. Is this correct so far?”

Oh sure, maybe…IF their illegal parents want to risk being caught and deported by claiming those benefits for their child.

• Link
• Report this comment

A bit late to this one. Just another instance where the government has created a human catastrophe thru its failure to assume a responsibility that was assigned them.

So….if the parents are deported, are their children returning with them. Will their government(s) accept the children even though they’re U.S. citizens?

What a mess, but then that’s, pretty much, what I’ve come to expect from the humps on the hill.

They ARE the mess.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Again, as I understand it, these babies are automatically US citizens who qualify for benefits such as medicaid, etc. If nothing else, this seems to create a fairly large drain on our shrinking resources.”

Good question – what I’m hearing is we don’t have any more money to deport so there must not be any to support either………….

• Link
• Report this comment

“the helicopters cover an awful lot of ground”

and how many helicoptors, spaced at what interval to be effective, and considering the support troops and facilities needed for them…would it take to EFFECTIVELY seal ALL of our borders. The best figures I can find list our land borders at 7612 miles and our coastline at 12,383 miles – which is probably a bit high, but it adds up to just under 20,000 miles. Even if you discount it 20% – that still just under 16,000 miles.

So how many soldiers and how many helicoptors and their attendent support would it take to close those borders?

• Link
• Report this comment

Josef,

You are a softie. You teach those lovely little children and you want to forget the law. Can I blame you ? No. The “innocents” are just that. If their parents are illegal, the parents are not innocent.

I believe most citizens know the difference between right and wrong. Those who place their children in this position are placing a burden on their children from the beginning. No matter how nice they are or hard working or good to their families, they have given them a bad start.

So, Mr. Softie, are you sure we are in agreement?

• Link
• Report this comment

“citizenship…duh”

An anchor doesn’t anchor itself, it anchors a BOAT. So what boat does an “anchor” baby anchor?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Problem is that that “risk” is getting smaller every day”

You do realize, don’t you, that deportations are UP under this admin?

• Link
• Report this comment

and how many helicoptors, spaced at what interval to be effective, and considering the support troops and facilities needed for them…would it take to EFFECTIVELY seal ALL of our borders. The best figures I can find list our land borders at 7612 miles and our coastline at 12,383 miles – which is probably a bit high, but it adds up to just under 20,000 miles. Even if you discount it 20% – that still just under 16,000 miles.

Throw in some drones and who needs Iraq or Afghanistan. This C.A. Rear General can retire in style right here on YOU S soil. Yup. I like it. I like it a whole lot. And on top of that, why we got all the crude oil we need right there in that Gulf of the Mexicos. I hear them drilling rigs are mighty easy pickin’s and the way I’m a feelin’ about them redcoats right now, I might just have to start with them ones that BP lays claim to first.

• Link
• Report this comment

WOW! An informative article actually not juxtaposing evil republicans and kindly nurturing democrats.

Get back on track Jay. You’re likely to lose your job!

• Link
• Report this comment

josef:

I just skimmed thru the comments. Anchor Babies beats Jackpot Babies…wouldn’t you agree?

• Link
• Report this comment

“That’s been proven bull $hit but of course you wouldn’t know that”

so, present your proof. I’m willing to be convinced. I won’t, however, take your unsupported word for it.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m pretty sure the sacred “Founding Fathers” were all dead by 1868, so this is really just correcting a flawed late addition to the Constitution. Like repealing 18th Amendment.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggie,

Google’s your friend, however, try to avoid the magnet temptations of your favorite far-left internet sites. Have a nice evening.

• Link
• Report this comment

There are other ways to take out a soldier…and even under your scenario, a good shot…well hidden…can take out quite a few other soldiers coming in one at a time. And all the while, LOTS of people could be crossing through the hole.

That would constitute an act of war. The US Government would be forced to act, then.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
3:45 pm

First off, they’re not “anchor babies.” They are citizens of the United States of America. That’s it. End of argument.
++++++++++++++

DING DING DING I think we have a winner.

Although I’m late to the “discussion” I though I might peruse a few of the early posts before I commented. Imagine my surprise when the FIRST post said it all. You sir are a fine American.

Although I don’t agree with all your half baked notions, anymore than you agree with all MY half baked notions, I think we agree on the basic principles upon which this Republic was founded. I can honestly say that I am proud that you are a fellow American. Semper Fi and all that……………

Now I have to wade through the 275+ posts (probably mostly drivel) to get to the end. Most will be posted by Luddites. Actually Luddites isn’t the correct term but I think it will serve here. If I use the word Nazi and bring up Aryan Race by strict internet rules I have “lost” the argument no matter how accurate it is when used in this context………………

• Link
• Report this comment

So now the mighty wise ones are going to blame the USA for illegal immigrants. It’s “big business” or George Bush or Republicans or chicken plants or tomato growers! Yes sir, all their fault.

The only ones to blame for illegal immigrants are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. They took it upon themselves to come here. They hired illegal coyotes to do it in most cases. Either that or the drug cartels made an entrance available to them

That’s like blaming the banks for bank robbers. The USA is the bank for illegals. They are responsible for their illegal actions.

• Link
• Report this comment

catlady
A few threads back when you went to attacking the intelligence of Georgians, Southerners (and by extension your comments here on the Appalachians…

• Link
• Report this comment

stands for decibels

October 20th, 2010
3:53 pm

And as long as we’re defining our terms, their parents are not “Illegals.” They are human beings.
++++++++++++

Of COURSE they are human beings you blithering idiot, if they were canines or bovines they wouldn’t be bearing offspring that were American citizens. They would be bearing animals.

They are also ILLEGALS. Quit trying to confuse the issue through obfuscation. What is your next point? A debate on the word is?

• Link
• Report this comment

Google’s your friend, however, try to avoid the magnet temptations of your favorite far-left internet sites. Have a nice evening.

Shorter Del:

I just got called on my BS and can’t back it up.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paleo, Paleo,

Nah..you didn’t write that all by yourself now did ya. Fred did his, however, he doesn’t know diddly about Semper Fi.

• Link
• Report this comment

Del, sure I did. me and old Grandad.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA

October 20th, 2010
8:22 pm

I believe the term is “Jus Soli” also known as birthright citiznship.

and through that as the baby is now a citizen is covered under the legal principle of jus soli. therefore the baby may facilitate their family members through fmaily reconcilliation.

However in America that can only be done once the citizen reaches 21 yrs of age.

Only problem is tha in many cases judges have been making exception inthe case of the mother and not allowing them to be deported when found out…… because some of the countries these babies’ familes are from will not accept the baby as it is not a citizen.

i think that is why they are called anchor, because if nothing else they anchor the mother to the USA.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ah…now comes Kamchak. A little late to the party because he probably just slept off his acid trip.

• Link
• Report this comment

” your favorite far-left internet sites. Have a nice evening.”

In other words you CAN’T present any proof. Standard evasion…when you can’t refute the numbers, attack the source. I’ll take that as a win for me.

• Link
• Report this comment

thomas, seriously, the companies make it worth the “risk” to come here because (drum roll) there is little or no risk to the companies in hiring undocumented (cheap) labor.

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet: I see you changed positions and now have a new and improved picture of BHO.
———————–

Please show me where I changed positions. Sorry, I can’t help channelling Kamchump occasionally.

I’m not sure that’s my opinion, it’s just a new point of view that I find interesting and am thinking on.

The fact is that the Idiot Messiah is doing pretty much the opposite of what a normal person would do to improve things. What motivates that is secondary.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggie, if it makes you feel better, mark it on your calender and hang it on your wall.

• Link
• Report this comment

“You do realize that deportations are “UP” under this administration.”

For what it is worth, they are up,but the odds are still in favor of the illegals having a long stay if they desire.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mirror, Mirror

October 20th, 2010
4:13 pm

Any person willing to work and pay their taxes should be granted automatic citizenship, and vice versa.
++++++++++

I would vote yes on that idea if it were ever presented on a ballot.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free air.

• Link
• Report this comment

Some fun exchanges have a good one y’all. I’m out

• Link
• Report this comment

Maybe the Repeblicans would like to wait until labor and then deny the mother care and watch
her die. Then they use the dead woman’s body to prove that she brought in swine flu from
Mexico. That is the Republican way- ain’t it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Maybe the Republicans could withold education from the anchor baby, and when the youngster
steal food use that to prove that Mexicans are criminals. That is the Republican way- ain’t it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Por favor.

• Link
• Report this comment

I had much rather pay to deport than to put steak dinners on their plates, when I’m eating Swanson TV dinners.

And how much are you willing to pay, on a per head basis?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually that would be Alexander not Solomon. (Google Gordian Knot)

Nope. (Google 1 Kings 3:16-28)

• Link
• Report this comment

Maybe the Republicans could set up a maximum security prison for the anchor babies and call them
terrorist sympathizers if they try to climb down out of their cribs. That’s the Republican way- ain’t it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Let’s define the American way -

A politician lets call him Nathan Deal mismanages large sums of finances and almost has to file bankruptcy – he is called ” a man that understands the pains of this economy and a stand up guy!”, however if I mismanage money and have struggles paying my bills I am labeled ” a dead beat debtor, that doesn’t deserve a job or credit because I refuse to pay it back”.

Republicans decry “Big Government” but yet want to introduce all types of laws and law enforcement.

Rich people – let’s define rich as having more than they really use and need – want to get tax cuts whereas hard working American that need every single dollar they make have to pay as much than rich person. Does that make since?

Pro-Lifers are adamantly against abortions and demand rape victims that they have no connections with to deal with the situation, maybe you can be against abortions when you pay for these kids that come into the world like that.

Basically, the American way is to play rhetoric. Do as I tell you but you are not allowed to do as I do! this sums it all up!

• Link
• Report this comment

Please show me where I changed positions.

For the second time this evening I implore, you now contend that BHO is NOT a socialist, correct?

After weeks of saying innumerable times that he was, correct?

And your assertion that The Idiot Messiah isn’t so much a socialist as he is someone who is actively working to weaken America economically, militarily, and diplomatically. without something/anything? to corroborate it is just more empty hyperbolic rhetoric.

Here, let me show you how it is done.

The reasons that your claim about weakening the US military is false are because:

1) Not only did he not reduce military spending, he INCREASED it by 8%.

2) Not only did he not reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan, he INCREASED them by 46,000.

3) Not only did he not reduce spending on the Pentagon’s intelligence gathering services, he INCREASED it. Though he did properly take some of it back from private contractors.

And so on, Lil’ BB. This is called building a case to support an assertion…

• Link
• Report this comment

You can’t simply purchase an American passport (at least not legally). But since 1990, foreigners with as little as $500,000 in cash have been able to invest their way to a quick green card, putting them on the path to citizenship. Quick, somebody call Lou Dobbs!

It’s all a game. If the Price is Right.

• Link
• Report this comment

Illegal aliens have multiple births in USA, then plead for relief from removal citing to hardship to the USC children. (check section 240A(b) of the INA).
Its like the child who murders both his parents, and then begs the court for leniency because he’s an orphan.

• Link
• Report this comment

Name another country that just does this…

All of the other countries in the world that use the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the land…

• Link
• Report this comment

Sorry, AmVet, but as usual, you try to indict something American.

The truth still remains that the only persons responsible for illegal immigrants are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Businesses hired them after they got here. They did not “ship” illegals. They did not invite them to pay coyotes and cross the desert. Companies hired illegals when they came to the door and offered to work the cheap menial jobs.

True, the companies that hired them were wrong They worked illegals but they did not bring them here in the first place.

Companies still hire immigrants but they are legal. That is fine, the way our country grew. The laws of our country are made to be followed, not iignored.
.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Name another country that just does this…”

so what you are saying is that we should model our behavior and our laws based on what OTHER countries do. Got it.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The laws of our country are made to be followed, not iignored.”

I’m all for that. Let’s let the “Bush tax cuts” expire on EVERYONE and use the extra money to round up and deport all the illegal immigrants. Now THAT’s a PLAN!

• Link
• Report this comment

Gotta get up early tomorrow…night all

• Link
• Report this comment

This one is EASY, GOOD for the challenge to anchor babies! I used to live in El Paso, and you’d see the heavy pregant mommas coming across the border to have their babies.

• Link
• Report this comment

gadmcs – Yeah, thats right, they waddle right across the border because NO ONE sends them back once they are here. They certainly can come here leagally – they just wait to have their anchor baby BEFORE going HOME. How hard is that for you to understand?

• Link
• Report this comment

…you seem to be using the chicken and egg argument.

Yep, no jobs, no border crossing.

• Link
• Report this comment

I find it very interesting that many American citizens (as reflected in many previous comments) hold the value of their American citizenship so cheaply, while the rest of the world sees it for what it is — a hugely valuable ticket to a better life for any children born here, and a chance to remain, even if here illegally, to raise their American citizen children. And the bonus is . . . where else in the world can you go and find this quality of life, and it’s free, if you just play your cards right, while the burden on responisble American citizens and tax payers becomes more and more unbearable every day that goes by. Many of the illegas don’t even pay the medical bills for the delivery of their anchor babies. And yes, they are “anchor babies”, and that is how the “illegals” (because they are here illegally) look at them, or they wouldn’t give up and risk every thing they have to get here just to give birth.

The 14th Amendment dealt with the issue of slavery and former slaves at the end of the Civil War. It was not meant to be an invitation to just walk in here and have you children so they can be US citizens, unlike their illegal immigrant parents or any of their ancestors in the entire history of their families. The wording in the 14th Amendment does support the concept, and it is unfortunate because the modern result of this language was not intended. Ironically, this is the only language in the entire Constituion that liberal Dems think should be strictly interpreted, but there is a reason for that. The language is unfortunate, and the raw politics of it is that the Democrats want a general amnesty (code word “comprehensive immigration reform”) for all illegals so they can all register to vote and thereby create a permanent Democrat majority for national elections and local elections in heavily populated illegal areas. The Dems, as many citizens do (see the comments) and hold the value of American citizenship very cheaply, and are willing to sell it, along with lots of our other American values, for votes — lots of votes.

Fortunately, the mood of the nation has changed 180 degrees during the first two years of the indescribably ridiculous Obamarama, now starting to come to its invevitable and ugly close (thank God) and once the House comes under Republican this November, and then the Senate in two more years, when Obama will mercifully also be shown the door, these kinds of things will start to be addressed with serious urgency. Not only can we not let ourselves become an economically socialistic, unproductive, lazy, and government dependent Europe, as Obama wants us to become, but we cannot allow huge illegal alien populations, that do not assimilate, to enter this country and wield enormous political power for a political party so willing to protitute itself and sell its soul and the value of American citizenship for the bogus dream of permanent majority rule.

• Link
• Report this comment

OK. Let me try to figure this out. It is against the law to enter this Country ILLEGALLY. Correct? OK. However, if you do come into this country ILLEGALLY and have a child, we will reward that child with a U.S. birth certificate and make him or her a citizen of the United States, pay for the birth and get the child on welfare so the mother can get money to stay in this country…and that’s not ALL! We will school that child and the child will get food stamps, the child will get FREE school lunches, and that’s not ALL! The mother and the child can have FREE healthcare and get into public housing, and that’s not ALL! The more children you have, the more money you will get. But keep in mind, it is against the law to enter this country ILLEGALLY! Do I have that right? OK. How do you feel about Birth Tourism?

http://www.eturbonews.com/15529/us-birth-tourism-becoming-flourishing-business

• Link
• Report this comment

Since we choose everything we do, if these folks don’t choose to come in illegally, there is no one to hire…………….

And if they KNEW they could find no employment and therefore no wages, they would not come here.

Sorry, md , your argument is weak…

• Link
• Report this comment

If we deported a thousand a day it would take about 30 years. Another problem Reagan and Bush collaborated on in clueless fashion. But hey, business wanted the cheap labor and the Social Security checks had to go out, so just look the other way. Congress, of course, is not blameless. No citizenship, no way! Special work permits if they come forward and identify themselves; risk deportation if they don’t.

• Link
• Report this comment

Why not let their native country keep them in jails?

Because the chances are good they won’t.

would that be a “fun with numbers” thing too?

Could be, but I’m not the one touting what a great job is being done by turning hardened criminals loose just to pump up the stats.

• Link
• Report this comment

Once the baby boomers all retire – there will be a MASSIVE labor shortage in the US. We will be clamoring for bodies to fill the openings and handle the work.

so, today the GOP hates immigrants. in 20 years – it will be ENTIRELY different. you cannot fight demographic trends.

• Link
• Report this comment

The boomers aren’t going to be able to retire, thanks to the GOP.

• Link
• Report this comment

WE CANNOT AMEND THIS SACRED DOCUMENT.

Sure you can. They wrote in the amendment procedure, for that very reason. It a very difficult process to get an amendment passed, which is as it should be. Otherwise you wind up with a mess. like the Georgia Constitution, which has amendments voted on every election.

• Link
• Report this comment

The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause in the 14th amendment clearly is intended to extend citizenship to former slaves and their descendants – people who were not here voluntarily. If the intent were that anyone born in the U.S. was to be considered a citizen, there would be no modifying clause. Similarly, if we ignored the “well-regulated militia” clause in the second amendment, any restriction whatsoever on gun ownership would be unconstitutional. Remember, the 2nd does not say “Congress shall make no law abridging…;” it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This means that states and localities could not restrict gun ownership any more than they could withhold any other fundamental right. Is that what we want?
People who come here illegally are expressly flouting the jurisdiction of the United States. Are they “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” only when they arrive in the delivery room? If the writers of the constitution and its amendments had not intended to place boundaries around the rights of citizens and the powers of government, there would be no modifying clauses at all. The whole thing could have been written on a cocktail napkin.

• Link
• Report this comment

“so, today the GOP hates immigrants. in 20 years – it will be ENTIRELY different. you cannot fight demographic trends.”

What kind of rubbish is this – both parties have let it slide for decades……………

• Link
• Report this comment

Deja Vu.

In Georgia, lawmakers have tried and failed for years to pass urging resolutions to change the US laws as they pertain to birthright citizenship. Those past resolutions never made it out of committee. Many of us fought them every year on various legal and humanitarian arguments.

But while they failed to reach the GA House floor, it is much more likely such a resolution will next year. There is a small chance of defeating such ill will toward children in the GA House committee.
But my gut tells me it will go to the GA House floor at least … and possibly even pass. (Especially if Mr. Nathan Deal becomes governor)
… but that is all just for show, as you probably know.

Given the extreme bias against our president (racially motivated, I am convinced), as you know, many also believe that Obama to be ‘foreign born’ (No not Kenya … Hawaii which we all know is a foreign country … right?

Psychologically speaking, and I mean pathological psychology, such rabid bias and bigotry, plus the palpable anger of immigrants, and their children, is a means for an extreme right mob mentality to lash out.
It is a hate filled demand to attempt to remove birthright citizenship.
In these economic hard times it a cop out to blame the ‘foreign’ and their newborn children.

The demand is for a reinterpretation of the 14th amendment, ignoring all the court decisions, legal interpretations, case law and precedents, all of which upheld the 14th amendment citizenship clause aka birthright citizenship.

But the fact is, such demanded change can not be done without a change of Constitution … i.e. and Amendment.

The best we can do in Georgia it so moderate this sign of the times rabid mob mentality when it shows its unreasonable hate filled face in our state government and try to keep that extreme element at bay.

Bottom line is that no matter how ugly this is likely to get, the reality of changing the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment, is very unlikely to succeed, in my humble non-lawyer opinion.

• Link
• Report this comment

so, what part of “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” does the Ga State Legislature not understand?

personally, if I was still living in GA, I would be 18 shades of pi$$ed off that they were faffing around with this when there is nothing CONSTITUTIONALLY that they can do …

• Link
• Report this comment

However, if you do come into this country ILLEGALLY and have a child,

Because I don’t think anyone actually knows. Which is a bad thing, when you’re talking about f-cking around with our Constitution, and you don’t even have a clue as to the scope of this “problem.”

• Link
• Report this comment

So if there are no banks, there would be no robbers???

What an absurd comparison. Even worse, what a total misrepresentation of my position.

You guys are the epitome of what is wrong – not holding folks accountable for there actions.

Puerile nonsense. I’ve *insisted* that they, along with the illegal employers, be held accountable to the rule of law. Repeatedly. You must have “missed” all of that though.

So, because there may be jobs, it is OK to break the law?? Is that what you guys are really saying??

md, you are MUCH smarter than this. This either/or mentality, along with “memory lapses” does not suit you very well.

• Link
• Report this comment

I distinctly remember asking my parents to come to America before I was born so I could take advantage of the United States.

• Link
• Report this comment

“ONLY TO INSURE CHILDREN OF SLAVES AND FORMER SLAVES ARE ALLOWED TO STAY HERE AND BE CITIZENS”

Please quote where the word “slave” or “slaves” is found in the 14th amendment.

• Link
• Report this comment

By the way, I assert with something like 94.9% confidence that the only reason we are talking about this subject today is this.

• Link
• Report this comment

md and thomas, I’m not saying law enforcement isn’t a key part to a civilized society, but in many instances the cost does not justify the benefit, and in many instances, it is those who profit (politically and financially) most who make the most noise (as with the war on drugs). this blog and this issue have many layers. at the end of the day, people come here to work and experience what we call freedom (I don’t believe we have a truly free society). once they’re here all bets are off. it’s like driving 75 in a 55 zone. if the government doesn’t enforce the law, it’s not your fault or mine. think about it. if we need to beef up border security, why haven’t we? if a “heavily pregnant” women flies to Texas or California or Florida, enters the U.S. legally, and has a child, the 14th Amendment is pretty clear. and it should be noted, this children are 15-20 years away from “taking jobs from Americans” (even as they ARE, but law Americans). as JBM notes, the decrease in illegal immigration may have more to do with the economy than law enforcement, but it seems to me it would be far easier and more profitable to investigate and sanction the employers (address the demand for cheap labor) than to “punish” people who are actualy working and paying taxes (sales tax, property taxes, via rent, etc.). those who employ undocmented workers and pay cash are the scofflaws. you “round them up” and fine/imprison them (before they can cry to Saxby Chambliss) and you’re making progress.

• Link
• Report this comment

OURFOREFATHERS, I am not sure “In God We Trust” appears anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. I believe the phrase was added to the currency (money) at some point in the 20th century.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paleo – you’re thinking of adding “under god” to the pledge – that happened in the mid-50s as a knee-jerk reaction to the “threat” of communism

In God We Trust showed up in the middle of the 19th century on coinage

and, like “under god”, it becamse the official motto in the mid-1950s …

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK, confirmed (via Wikipedia). It was added to coinage in 1865. my point was, it appears nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration. “Under God” was added to the Pledge in the 1950’s (to fight the godless communists).

• Link
• Report this comment

Paleo – you’re thinking of adding “under god” to the pledge

Not to be confused with the fabulous television series (written & produced by Avondale Estates, GA native W. Watts Biggers) with the similar title.

(Starring Tim Bearden as Simon Bar Sinister.)

• Link
• Report this comment

atlantaalan, again, I ask, why aren’t we ’sending mommy and daddy home’? why are the healthcare providers NOT calling the INS or DHS? seems easy, right? the whole family (at least mom and kid) ar right there. send them home? do you think (as with food stamps and “big ag”) “big med” doesn’t care who pays the bills (U.S. taxpayers)? this issue is only an issue because self-serving politicos and influence peddlers are telling you it is an issue.

• Link
• Report this comment

atlantaalan

Learn Immigration Law, then pass judgement. Then you’ll realize what you posted is way out in left field.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
7:55 pm
moderate

-I did not say that “people born here to parents illegally could not go back to their country of origin.”
You said “Many countries do not recognize these children as citizens ”
which is false depending on what you mean by many. I meant to say their parents country of orgin.

-And I still hold the line that, and don’t take this the wrong way, we are
-REALLY talking about Mexicans or you would not be bringing up the
-56% etc. Also, you will note that I put in the smilie for the purpose
-of being flippant but at the same time making the point that for
-many, and I did not say you were doing it, do not distinguish
-between “illegal” and “Mexican” and that what many of the more
-reactionary are talking about IS the Mexican…
Your statement would seem to imply that people are against illegal immigration because they dislike Mexicans. The only problem with that argument is the largest number of legal immigrants to the US is Mexican. 24.7 of legal immigrants are from Mexico while 56% of illegal. Mexicans are 5 times the number of the next country of orgin. If the American people did not like Mexicans in general it would seem through congress they would also want to curtail legal immigration by Mexicans but that is not the case. You seem to want to make this a race issue so you can pontificate instead sticking to factual information. Just my opinion.

-And as for the American Indian thing, true…but I’ve got a get off the boat free
-card! Under Choctaw -common law, I’m allowed to stay…just not be a citizen!
Nice Eurocentric viewpoint. And what eventually happen to the Choctaw. Do you really want to bring that up as an example?

• Link
• Report this comment

Michelle Malkin, pack your bags!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Besides, all you have to do is work the magic words “personal responsibility””

but, of course, it’s not THEIR personal responsibility to make sure schools are educating kids on biology

and, according to one poster earlier this week, we need to spend more time teaching kids how to balance check books and apply for a mortgage! those are the IMPORTANT things in life! not this elitist literature and calculus …

• Link
• Report this comment

Bob – given this point: “described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties”

gosh, could the author BE any more racist? talk about tainting your contention.

• Link
• Report this comment

Again…why, just because a child is born here, should they be entitled to citizenship? Even if the parents are here legally.

• Link
• Report this comment

crazy – “Again…why, just because a child is born here, should they be entitled to citizenship? Even if the parents are here legally”

I sort-of agree. If one parent is a citizen (not just there on a VISA), the child should be a US citizen, as well.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK…read what you quoted, again. I think you would NOT agree with it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone – I don’t think that a child should be granted citizenship just because he/she is born there, UNLESS one parent is a US citizen already.

• Link
• Report this comment

Other “Great” republicans running fr office this year:

Congressional Candidate Runs Ad Attacking WRONG Opponent
The ad in question attacks Gardner’s opponent, Democratic Congresswoman Betsy Markey for–among other things–voting in favor of the 2010 budget, which the narrator refers to as “the most fiscally irresponsible budget in history.”

The problem? Markey didn’t vote in favor of the 2010 budget. The ad apparently confuses Betsy Markey with the other Markey in Congress, Ed of Massachusetts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/cory-gardner-ad-pulled-by_n_770252.html

• Link
• Report this comment

” I don’t think that a child should be granted citizenship just because he/she is born there”

Ok

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone @ 8:09

I read about that yesterday and just scratched my head.

• Link
• Report this comment

this issue is only an issue because self-serving politicos and influence peddlers are telling you it is an issue.

and again, in case anyone missed it earlier:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/governor/arizona

Note the timeline, where the blue and red lines cross. Coincides nicely with the of the rancher’s murder and subsequent exploitation of this tragedy.

If it prosper politically, then none dare call it effed-up.

• Link
• Report this comment

Now that the sheriff won’t do the foreclosures, will the banks hire Blackwater (Xe) to breakdown the doors and throw the mortgage deadbeats out on the street.

Today, almost anything is possible, but they have a bigger problem…the middle class is waking up and realizing that all the laws passed by Congress are essentially written by and to protect the monied interests, at their expense. They are starting to fight back…and take the law into their own hands.

Here is a great article about the foreclosure mess. Read it if you have the time.

• Link
• Report this comment

with the of the. Oy.

outa here for awhile. Try not to anchor any babies while I’m away.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I read about that yesterday and just scratched my head.”

You wouldn’t if you’d ever lived there. Warner Robins is my Georgia hometown.

• Link
• Report this comment

your Georgia hometown? Bless your heart!! As a native Alabamian, I empathize with you.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If you went to France on vacation and your wife had a baby, the baby would NOT be French for Gods Sake!.”

But this is not France and our Constitution is different.

• Link
• Report this comment

Horsefeathers – “If you went to France on vacation and your wife had a baby, the baby would NOT be French for Gods Sake!”

which is exactly the point I’m trying to make … and why it needs to be clear that, even if you’re in the country legally (such as on a tourist VISA), that any child born in the US to 2 parents who are NOT citizens should not automatically have US citizenship bestowed on them.

• Link
• Report this comment

“As a native Alabamian, I empathize with you.”

I know, and you’d think a town with a huge Air Force base would be just a TAD more cosmopolitan, wouldn’t you?

• Link
• Report this comment

As I weigh the issue of anchor babies, a perfect storm of constitutional doldrums wash over me and I founder in a trough of partisan planks. I think it’s best to bail on this one.

• Link
• Report this comment

The whole problem with interpretation of any of the amendments is that the courts should be enforcing the framers INTENT. This intent is easily researched in period writings. Instead the courts are continously trying to ferret out new meanings from old words. Like ANDYGRD posted, the 14th was never meant to give citizenship to babies born in this country to parents that are not citizens. Somewhere along the way previous rulings were thrown out the window and citizenship was granted to those not eligible. It would help if the idiots in Washington would adopt a policy of plain language instead of doublespeak and jargon.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The whole problem with interpretation of any of the amendments is that the courts should be enforcing the framers INTENT”

Uh huh. So you think the framers of any amendment aren’t capable of actually putting their intent into the words of that amendment.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dog…if intent was so easily defined we would not need lawyers.

• Link
• Report this comment

It is time to give the American people a break from being the welfare providers for the hispanic welfare class invasion. We really don’t deserve to be caught between a treasonous Administration and the illegal mob while we are paying the bills.

• Link
• Report this comment

Vickie…that is way over the Dems head at this point.

• Link
• Report this comment

“if intent was so easily defined we would not need lawyers.”

I just love the idea that we should not be interpreting what is actually WRITTEN in the Constitution…we should, instead, be governing and judging laws based on what is NOT in there. Novel idea, don’t you think?

• Link
• Report this comment

Vickie

October 21st, 2010
8:48 am
It is time to give the American people a break from being the welfare providers for the hispanic welfare class invasion. We really don’t deserve to be caught between a treasonous Administration and the illegal mob while we are paying the bills

What about the illegals from Europe, Asia, Africa??? Why only single out the Hispanics???

• Link
• Report this comment

“Ok, no problem with that. How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to cover the cost of finding and deporting all of them?”

But, but, but……we want to CUT spending!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Ok, no problem with that. How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to cover the cost of finding and deporting all of them?”

Well, in CA alone, they are spending 10 billion annually anyhow:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

Thai is a 100 billion over a ten year period – so, the question might be how much would it cost to deport them one time vs 10 billion annually…………..

• Link
• Report this comment

Republicans: The greatest threat to America. Name one republican that is worth anything,, NONE. They are all evil.

• Link
• Report this comment

“What about the illegals from Europe, Asia, Africa??? Why only single out the Hispanics???”

Hey, some group had to replace the blacks and Jews!

So now it’s the Mexicalis and Muslims…

CO, your post at 8:43 is spot on.

Let’s review, shall we?

The Republic just endured eight years of unmitigated disasters and serial debacles at the hands of the worst administration in modern history, as enabled by the worst Republican leaders in the history of the party. Bush and Cheney should never have been allowed to serve out their terms. How they were not impeached for serial violations of US law is a travesty and testament to the craven and spineless Democrats.

Documented train wreck after train wreck. Deadly and incompetent. Morally bankrupt with record numbers of scandals and corruption.

And if I understand correctly, in the ensuing two years they had some sort of stunning epiphany?

They showed sincere remorse for screwing up the nation horrifically? Economically, environmentally, in terms of domestic policy and especially in foreign policy?

NO.

From what I have seen they have not made one substantive improvement whatsoever. Nothing. The Party of No.

If anything they are even more intransigent and irrational then ever. Witness the advent of the lunatic fringe’s lunatic fringe, aka the Tea Party. Hopeless misguided hyper-reactionaries.

And anybody who believes the bumbling neo-cons have changed stripes is just delusional.

More of the same for the grand advocates of the failed status quo…

• Link
• Report this comment

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” Nice words.

Yes they are nice words – just happens to be unsustainable in reality……………may be why both parties helped put in qualifiers to legal immigration. Take in the worlds poor, how long do you think it would take to run out of money – think about it.

• Link
• Report this comment

The real problem with the 14th amendment is the amendment was never ratified. Just over a quarter but below a third of the states have rejected the 14th amendment in 1871. This includes the 16th amendment and 17th amendment that was never ratified. You need more than three quarters of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. However amendments 14 to 28 are not legal they were passed in the 1871 corporate constitution not the dejure 1787 constitution. The corporate constitution 1871 is in all caps “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” but the dejure 1787 constitution is “united states for America” the reason for this is to hide the original 13th amendment that bars esquires from serving in government. This means that all lawyers’ attorneys and barristers are to lose their US citizenship and be deported from the country.

• Link
• Report this comment