Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Immigration

Immigration Immigration Political Forum - For topics and discussions about illegal immigrants and immigrant rights


Thanks Tree2Thanks
  • 1 Post By GluteusMaximus
  • 1 Post By guy39
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 17th, 2018, 08:08 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 296
Anchors Belong On Ships

Tell the hand holding this sign that America does not run on illegal aliens:


A study by Tom Wong of the University of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25 percent of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That totals about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified illegal aliens.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has noted that an amnesty for DACA illegal aliens will spur increased welfare usage by anchor babies, as amnestied parents of those citizen children are more likely to enroll their kids in federal welfare programs if they, themselves, are legal residents rather than illegal aliens.
Paul Ryan’s Amnesty to Increase Number of Anchor Babies on Welfare
by John Binder
16 Jun 2018Washington, D.C.

Paul Ryan's Amnesty to Increase Number of Anchor Babies on Welfare | Breitbart
Only in America can parasites sue:

Children of Illegal Immigrants Sue Florida Over State’s College Tuition Policy
November 2, 2011 9:29 AM

Children of Illegal Immigrants Sue Florida Over State?s College Tuition Policy « CBS Tampa
The mothers of anchor babies are not Americans, nor are their babies American after they squat and drop on American soil; hence, their children do not meet the eligibility requirements should they get Ryan’s path to citizenship which is his goal before he sneaks out of town in the dead of night.

Admittedly, no one expects a flood of anchor babies running for the presidency in the near future, but it is not hard to image a presidential eligibility mess somewhere down the road. The next mess will not take as long as the time it took between Chester A. Arthur’s presidency, 1881 to 1885, and Obama’s.

NOTE: The Chicago sewer rat was American on his mother’s side. His presidential eligibility is another matter.

A casual approach to the eligibility clause prevailed after Arthur beat the system. It was understood that an ineligible person in the presidential line of succession would not become president should the situation arise. To my way of thinking, no one belongs in the line of succession if they are ineligible. Losing the services of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Mitch McConnell’s wife, et al. would not be a great loss to the country.

Also, there was no great rush to strictly enforce the eligibility clause after Arthur because no one thought he hated America. Not so with Obama. The next ineligible, America-hating, president will build upon every betrayal the sewer rat got away with. That is not to say that an eligible president will not do it, too. Bill Clinton is a case in point, but he only dreamt about executing the betrayals Obama got away with.

Incidentally, When I was young I thought that anyone born under the American flag was automatically a U.S. citizen even if the birth took place on a ship at sea flying the American flag. I do not know where I got that idea, but I never gave it much thought. Illegal immigration was not a problem in the 1940s and ‘50s. Like most Americans I believed the federal government would protect this country’s borders. I learned otherwise in recent years, as well as coming to a better understanding of the 14th Amendment and the Eligibility Clause in the Constitution.


The fact is, anchor babies are not citizens of the United States, and the 14th Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to babies born on American soil.
CNN Debate Fails On 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause
Douglas V. Gibbs Wednesday, October 19, 2011

https://canadafreepress.com/article/...zenship-clause
XXXXX

Thursday, June 16, 2011
Myth #13: Anchor Babies are American Citizens

Political Pistachio: Myth #13: Anchor Babies are American Citizens
Anchor Babies was used against Donald Trump during the campaign when he promised to send them home. He was right. They are not Americans at birth.

NOTE: Paul Ryan and his RINO are knowingly close to passing an unconstitutional law. Listen closely to what Mark Levin said before Trump won the election:



The amnesty crowd is hinting at a compromise because they know they are backing a loser. The story is let the anchor babies who were born here stay with THEIR RELATIVES, but close the loophole in the future. That is an incremental trap.

Here are two compromises the open-borders crowd will never agree to:

1. Deport the parents along with illegal alien relatives, but let the children stay here until they turn 18 years old when they can be deported. Families will then be reunited in their own country. Do it that way so the blame falls on their parents for breaking the law instead of letting the filthy sneaks in Congress lay a guilt trip on Americans.

2. If the Supreme Court ever rules that anchor babies are American citizens send the kids home with their parents with proof of citizenship documentation that allows them to return after they turn 18.

Parenthetically, the halfwits on the Supreme Court could not figure out the Constitution when illegal aliens squat and drop their kids on American soil; so what in hell are they going to do with this one?


American Surrogates Are Giving Birth To Anchor Babies
JP Carroll
National Security & Foreign Affairs Reporter
9:08 PM 10/07/2016

American Surrogates Are Giving Birth To Anchor Babies | The Daily Caller
Surrogate baby machines are expensive; so selling birth certificates became a cottage.

Regardless of what happens to the economy after illegal aliens are deported, Americans will get their country back and be better off for it. Americans can work their way through economic downturns, but it is impossible if tens of millions of illegal aliens are here when the economy tanks as it always does. That is called a boom and bust cycle.

Naturally, the lady who so admires Margaret Sanger had to chime in:


“They’re called babies,” Hillary Rodham Clinton posted on Twitter.
Hillary’s twitter was a big mistake:

Babies? When they are inside the womb, and having their faces cut open, their brains crushed, or when they are cut into pieces, Hillary Rodham Clinton doesn't call them babies. She calls them fetuses. Illegal aliens claim it is dehumanizing to call anchor babies anchor babies, but liberals have no problem dehumanizing babies by calling them fetuses and then joking over wine and salad about dismembering their bodies, as a Planned Parenthood official was caught on video doing recently.

Hillary Clinton has no right to speak out on "Anchor babies" when she calls dismembered babies "fetuses". But if that is a favorite liberal word, maybe we should do what Mark Levins suggests and call them "anchor fetuses". That shouldn't upset them, right? Liberals don't get upset when fetuses are dissected. What's deportation compared to that?

Just remember it's all about language. They want to take away our ability to criticize these people who are stealing citizenship for themselves and their families. If we lose the ability to say what they are, if we are forced to call them "dreamers", we lose the battle.
August 21, 2015
If 'anchor babies' is too incendiary, how about 'anchor fetuses'?
By Newsmachete

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...r_fetuses.html
The number of innocent human beings killed with kindness amounts to fifty-five-million-plus abortions in this country alone.

Finally, Ann Coulter had it right. I especially enjoyed this:


Conservative firebrand and bestselling author Ann Coulter joined Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at a rally in Iowa Tuesday – and she delivered an epic smackdown of “speech Nazis” who ridiculed the GOP frontrunner for using the term “anchor baby.”

“Apparently liberals think ‘anchor baby’ isn’t pleasant sounding,” she said in a speech introducing Trump at the event. “They prefer words like ‘aborted baby.'”

She continued,“But I have an idea. How about anvil babies – because that’s what anchor babies are around the necks of the American taxpayer.”
Ann Coulter joins Trump in epic smackdown
On 'anchor babies': 'Maybe it'd be better to keep their mouths shut'
Published: 08/25/2015 at 9:18 PM

Ann Coulter joins Trump in epic smackdown
Unfortunately, Ann’s anvil idea was dead in the water. The speech Nazis will never let Americans decide they want to be the hammers for a while:


And is it not interesting that the highest paid network mouths are called anchors? QUESTION: If they are anchors what in hell are they anchoring? ANSWER: Their tax dollar salaries.

Last edited by Flanders111; June 17th, 2018 at 09:33 AM.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 18th, 2018, 03:26 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
Anchor Babies was used against Donald Trump during the campaign when he promised to send them home. He was right.
and he won the election.

He will lose more than the House if he signs anything that gives amnesty to illegal aliens in any form:



Lou Dobbs: If Paul Ryan ‘Deceives’ Trump into DACA Amnesty, GOP Will Lose House Majority
by John Binder
16 Jun 2018 Washington, D.C.

Lou Dobbs: If Paul Ryan 'Deceives' Trump into DACA Amnesty, GOP Will Lose House Majority | Breitbart
Flanders111 is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 01:15 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 296
UPDATE


Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
The mothers of anchor babies are not Americans, nor are their babies American after they squat and drop on American soil; hence, their children do not meet the eligibility requirements should they get Ryan’s path to citizenship which is his goal before he sneaks out of town in the dead of night.
Freakazoids are so busy concentrating on killing babies they have no time for this one:

One of the biggest challenges in the immigration debate today is that the American people are routinely given faulty "facts" or outright lies by the media and opportunistic politicians. The media-manufactured crisis over separating children from their illegal alien parents at the southern border is just the most recent example. The misrepresented photos, absurd comparisons of detention centers to concentration camps, and nonstop cable news demagoguery have served to confuse the public and advance the narrative of the open borders movement.

Now comes a whopper: much of what the American public has been told about birthright citizenship is wrong. The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Fitisemanu v. United States, a case of birthright citizenship currently before the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. In its brief, IRLI attorneys did not take a position on the primary issue in Fitisemanu: whether American Samoa is part of the United States for purposes of citizenship. The brief instead examined the overarching matter of birthright citizenship. Namely, does the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution grant automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. residents, or who are in the country without permission? The findings may well topple conventional wisdom about one of the crown jewels of the left's immigration agenda.

For decades, many agencies have treated virtually all children born in the United States – even the children of illegal aliens or tourists – as citizens at birth under the Constitution. This all-inclusive interpretation of birthright citizenship, repeated endlessly in the mainstream media, is what gave rise to the "anchor baby" phenomenon. With children born in the United States to illegal alien parents instantly qualifying for welfare and other state and local benefit programs, the incentive for aliens to have their children born in the U.S. is immense.

Yet under Supreme Court precedent, neither the children of illegal aliens nor those of tourists are citizens at birth. In the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court found that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment because his parents, when he was born, were legally residing in the United States. The holding of this case is widely misread as conferring citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment on all persons whatsoever born in the United States, with the narrow exceptions of children of diplomats, members of an invading force, and Indians born in the allegiance of a tribe. The brief shows that this reading is wrong; the Court clearly excluded the children of illegal aliens and non-U.S. residents from constitutional birthright citizenship. The Court's decision has been incorrectly applied for 120 years.
By the time Fitisemanu v. United States gets to the SCOTUS wannabe Justice Brett Kavanaugh will have a vote. Democrats need not worry. Republicans cannot overturn a 45 year incorrect decision to save millions of infants from the baby butchers. Assuming four libs are still there, can anybody see the Court overturning a 120 year incorrect decision?

Based on Wong Kim Ark and an earlier decision in Wilkins v. Elk, the still controlling rule of the Supreme Court is clear: whether one is a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment depends on whether one was born in the United States to a U.S. resident parent who, at the time, both had permission to be in the United States and owed direct and immediate allegiance to the United States. This rule happens to exclude the children of both illegal aliens (who do not have permission to be in the country) and tourists (who do not "reside" here) from constitutional birthright citizenship.

Interpreted correctly, the precedents of these cases would work a sea change in immigration law as it is currently applied. In addition to shrinking the magnet for illegal passage across the southern border, recognition of the correct rule would prevent crass exploitation of our laws by the "birth tourism" industry, in which foreign nationals essentially plan an American vacation with the explicit purpose of bearing a child here. The payoff is a U.S. passport for the child, who would then have the right to sponsor the parents for citizenship when he reaches 21 years of age. Is this an objective of U.S. immigration policy or a mockery of it?

In her virtue-signaling attacks on Trump administration immigration policy, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) declared an urgent need to "reimagine" the purpose of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. While that proposal is childlike, unserious, and a political nonstarter, she's correct that some reimagining of immigration law is overdue. A good place to start would be the loopholes and misinterpretations that have allowed birthright citizenship to be manipulated in ways that run counter to America's best interests.
July 11, 2018
It's time to 'reimagine' birthright citizenship
By Brian Lonergan

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...izenship_.html
Flanders111 is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 01:22 PM   #4
PragmaticBastard
 
GluteusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 827
(sigh)
Thanks from Hollywood
GluteusMaximus is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 08:44 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 4,321
Thanks from Flanders111
guy39 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Immigration

Tags
anchors, belong, ships



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fair and Impartial News Anchors Libertine Current Events 8 August 2nd, 2014 04:25 PM
Faux News Anchors = Stepford Wives? tristanrobin Freedom of Speech 8 December 19th, 2013 11:10 AM
Where Is It That I Belong? Ghost Philosophy 16 April 9th, 2012 02:57 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.