Anchor baby: a tale of hypocrisy

a reply to: reldra

I think the drug cartels are extremely rich and are doing it themselves. Tunnels with lights, air conditioning, motorcycles for rent, and I hear one even has a McDonald's. : )

originally posted by: lakesidepark

originally posted by: Vector99
Anchor babies need to be sent to their parents native country along with the parents no if's and's or but's.

You want to come to America? There is an actual legal process to do that. You don't have pay $5000+ to travel through the desert for weeks getting raped on a daily basis by your coyotes.

But, there is that raping thing....is it better to get raped by coyotes or lawyers? I dunno, I've ben raped by lawyers, but never coyotes, so I can't say either way.

One is metaphorical, the other is real rape. Which would you prefer in that situation?

originally posted by: angeldoll
This issue of immigration is being blown way out of proportion. Yeah we need to guard the borders, (mostly to prevent terrorists from coming in) but all this other crap is just talk. Crap talk. An invented crisis. We have Catholics from another country coming here for work, which they find in the lower paying unskilled jobs.

The country is getting hysterical over a big fat blown-up political football.

If Americans want the criminals to stop coming in, then STOP BUYING their damn drugs.

Welcome to ignorant america ATS. THIS comment defines it, literally.

Let everyone in, just let em in...

originally posted by: Night Star
We're not supposed to say Merry Christmas anymore, now it's supposed to be Happy Holidays. We're not supposed to call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree, it's now a holiday tree. We're not supposed to call illegal immigrants illegal, now it's undocumented immigrants. It doesn't change a damn thing. Christmas is still Christmas, illegal is still illegal. Do we call someone robbing a bank: financially challenged? If we keep this up, we will never be able to speak freely.

I call Christmas trees-Christmas trees. I don't think I have heard of a holiday tree. I often say "Happy Holidays" because many people don't celebrate Christmas. It would be like saying Happy Birthday to someone in June when they were born in October.
Undocumented is better, it isn't very nice to call an entire person illegal- their presence here is illegal based upon not having documentation, therefore, Undocumented is a little more appropriate.

Corporations began using Happy Holidays to appeal to a larger amount of the population and sell more stuff at 'Holiday Time'.

You are still able to speak freely. Nothing has been taken from you. You still seem to be able to call illegal what I call undocumented. Somehow you seem to paint yourself as a victim of something, though.

originally posted by: angeldoll
This issue of immigration is being blown way out of proportion. Yeah we need to guard the borders, (mostly to prevent terrorists from coming in) but all this other crap is just talk. Crap talk. An invented crisis. We have Catholics from another country coming here for work, which they find in the lower paying unskilled jobs.

The country is getting hysterical over a big fat blown-up political football.

If Americans want the criminals to stop coming in, then STOP BUYING their damn drugs.

Tell that to the construction workers that can't get jobs because of the flood of illegals.

Tell that to the former employees of Disney, the former employees of Google, of Microsoft, of Southern California Edison, of Infosys, and the former employees of dozens of other hi-tech employers that not only lost their jobs, but had to train their foreign H1B visa replacements.

Tell that to the inner-city youth, that can't get any type of employment, while the government hosts programs to employ foreign youth, and illegals take all the low-paying jobs that used to be entry-level jobs for the citizen workforce.

It is not overblown, that is just another liberal progressive talking point to obscure the true problem.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: lakesidepark

originally posted by: Vector99
Anchor babies need to be sent to their parents native country along with the parents no if's and's or but's.

You want to come to America? There is an actual legal process to do that. You don't have pay $5000+ to travel through the desert for weeks getting raped on a daily basis by your coyotes.

But, there is that raping thing....is it better to get raped by coyotes or lawyers? I dunno, I've ben raped by lawyers, but never coyotes, so I can't say either way.

One is metaphorical, the other is real rape. Which would you prefer in that situation?

EXACTLY. You get it. A cookie for you.
For the record I was agreeing with you, but just piling on and pointing out that legal immigration is not easy. And it shouldn't be either. People need to have to work to get into this country, and work when they get here, not just waltz in and demand their benefits.

Yes they should do it the legal way. Not get raped by dirty coyotes.
(however it still is not fun to get raped by lawyers, but its a lot cleaner and no STD)

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: reldra

I think the drug cartels are extremely rich and are doing it themselves. Tunnels with lights, air conditioning, motorcycles for rent, and I hear one even has a McDonald's. : )

The US created the cartels and continues to support them.

a reply to: lakesidepark

No sir. It's not a liberal talking point, but perhaps it should be. It's more of a deflection from our real issues of the billionaires wanting to become the first trillionaires at the expense of selling our governmental policies off to the highest bidder and other atrocities. It is such a minor issue compared to that. So who's going to cut my grass for $60? Who gives a rats ass.

originally posted by: lakesidepark

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Who are you talking to?

Who is offended by 'anchor baby'?

Do you know the reason for the term?

What term should be used for the act of using a baby of illegal aliens and incorrect interpretation of the 14th Amendment as leverage to squat in sovereign nation and exploit their legal system?

Does the term 'latchkey kid', 'free-range children', or 'soccer mom' offend these people too?

What's the correct interpretation then? The supreme court already ruled on this issue and concluded that any baby born in the U.S. is a citizen regardless of the status of their parents as long as they are not diplomats of a foreign country.

Actually the U.S. Supreme Court has never made such a ruling on the children born of people in the country illegally. That is a fallacy, not a truth.

For the record, the ruling in 1898 applied to children born of foreign parents that were LEGAL RESIDENTS, not visitors, but legally residing in the U.S., and then exited the country, and were not permitted re-entry...this is the ruling that has been misinterpreted by the progressives to include the babies of foreign visitors and illegal entrants, thus allowing the flood of 'anchor babies' we are dealing with now.

No ruling about children of foreigners visiting the country, or illegally entering the country, and having children here has EVER been made by the U.S. Supreme Court. That LIE needs to STOP before any serious discussion can be had on the matter by intelligent persons.

TIME TO DENY THE PROGRESSIVE LIE!

It is the fact that the Supreme Court will not hear the case, not that they haven't ruled on it. Immigration accepts those born on US soil to be US citizens. There is no lie here.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: lakesidepark

No sir. It's not a liberal talking point, but perhaps it should be. It's more of a deflection from our real issues of the billionaires wanting to become the first trillionaires at the expense of selling our governmental policies off to the highest bidder and other atrocities. It is such a minor issue compared to that. So who's going to cut my grass for $60? Who gives a rats ass.

Cut your own grass. I do.
You can afford to spend $60 on getting grass cut? Most of us can't afford such a frivolous expenditure.

And billionaires becoming trillionaires how? by selling out the citizens of the U.S. for cheap H1B and illegal labor? Could THAT also be a possibility?

Yes it is a liberal talking point, and YES, this is a real issue. And YES, the progressives want it to be ignored so they can create their own utopia of permanent lower-class populations submissive to the power of the government, and it is the progressive billionaires that are selling off our country to the highest bidder for their own power.

A little kernel of truth can be dug out of a progressive lie, just like a broken clock is right twice a day, and a blind pig sometimes finds an acorn.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: reldra

I think the drug cartels are extremely rich and are doing it themselves. Tunnels with lights, air conditioning, motorcycles for rent, and I hear one even has a McDonald's. : )

The US created the cartels and continues to support them.

I have heard that, but have never seen any evidence to support it. It's seems to be conjecture. If you have any sources to back that up, I'd like to read them. (Seriously, I would -- not being a smart ass, I respect your opinions.) If you would point me to the documents that support your opinion, I'd like to read them.

a reply to: lakesidepark

Cut your own grass. I do.

Good for you. Do you mind terribly if I can't be bothered to cut my own grass? I'd rather pay someone else to do it, if that's okay with you.

All this is a deflection from our REAL internal issues, and looking for something that we can say we did something about, because we are helpless to solve our actual multitude of real problems and government corruption.

But go ahead and jump on the bandwagon of hating immigrants. Maybe you can't think of anything else to be disgruntled about. So be it.

originally posted by: reldra


It is the fact that the Supreme Court will not hear the case, not that they haven't ruled on it. Immigration accepts those born on US soil to be US citizens. There is no lie here.

You should post the cases that have been denied by the Supreme Court, and the details of the cases, so that supposed 'lie' can be truly discussed. There could be cases, and there could be reasons they were not taken up by the Court...and then again this could be just another progressive lie.

Just saying it hoping you are more believable don't make it so. Know what I mean?

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: lakesidepark


All this is a deflection from our REAL internal issues, and looking for something that we can say we did something about, because we are helpless to solve our actual multitude of real problems and government corruption.

But go ahead and jump on the bandwagon of hating immigrants. Maybe you can't think of anything else to be disgruntled about. So be it.

And when the argument can't be won, the HATE word comes out, back to that eh?
Racist and xenophobic won't be far behind.

Those that are trying to address this problem truthfully don't hate immigrants, nor do they hate illegal immigrants, but they may hate progressives for subverting the laws of the U.S. and using immigrants and illegal immigrants to enable their own power, while the progressives destroy the means which the poor and minority populations of this country use to support themselves, and destroy the ability of educated youth to secure employment.

You must hate blacks, hate the poor, hate the college graduates? No? Yes?

We are discussing a REAL issue, whether you accept it or not. Name-calling won't deflect from the discussion.
And I don't disagree about government corruption, how do you think the laws of the U.S. are being ignored?
This issue goes hand-in-hand with government corruption, it is actually one of the greatest symptoms of government and business corruption!

originally posted by: lakesidepark

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: lakesidepark

No sir. It's not a liberal talking point, but perhaps it should be. It's more of a deflection from our real issues of the billionaires wanting to become the first trillionaires at the expense of selling our governmental policies off to the highest bidder and other atrocities. It is such a minor issue compared to that. So who's going to cut my grass for $60? Who gives a rats ass.

Cut your own grass. I do.
You can afford to spend $60 on getting grass cut? Most of us can't afford such a frivolous expenditure.

It depends on where you live how much it costs to get the grass cut. I pay between $25 and $30. $30 includes some weeding/minor tree trimming. I have arthritis in my left knee and the mower coupled with the terrain on my property don't seem to mix. If it hits 6 inches, I get fined from the village. It is silly to tell other people how to handle their lawns.

a reply to: lakesidepark

It is not overblown, that is just another liberal progressive talking point to obscure the true problem.

And your usual right wing complaints are covering up the real problem. That problem isn't the illegals but rather the companies and other people who employ the illegals. If these people were to start facing jail time for being so cheap that they would rather hire an illegal instead American so they could increase their profits then the illegal problem would solve itself.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: reldra

I think the drug cartels are extremely rich and are doing it themselves. Tunnels with lights, air conditioning, motorcycles for rent, and I hear one even has a McDonald's. : )

The US created the cartels and continues to support them.

I have heard that, but have never seen any evidence to support it. It's seems to be conjecture. If you have any sources to back that up, I'd like to read them. (Seriously, I would -- not being a smart ass, I respect your opinions.) If you would point me to the documents that support your opinion, I'd like to read them.

Here;s a start Time Magazine . There is a lot more with simple searches.

I know you're not trying to trying to be a smartass, sorry if the answers seemed curt.

originally posted by: lakesidepark

originally posted by: reldra


It is the fact that the Supreme Court will not hear the case, not that they haven't ruled on it. Immigration accepts those born on US soil to be US citizens. There is no lie here.

You should post the cases that have been denied by the Supreme Court, and the details of the cases, so that supposed 'lie' can be truly discussed. There could be cases, and there could be reasons they were not taken up by the Court...and then again this could be just another progressive lie.

Just saying it hoping you are more believable don't make it so. Know what I mean?

There are cases in which it is mentioned and affirms this stance. This is a conservative website and the writer seems to either not agree or thinks a statute MIGHT be able to change it, but even the writer seems not very hopeful.

There aren't many that would have 'standing' in such a case, except for Immigration and Customs.

a reply to: reldra
I would consider the National Review to be an 'establishment Republican' website. That is not necessarily conservative, and not necessarily Constitutionalist. I consider myself the latter, not the former, as I lean more toward the liberal view on many social issues. But this issue ain't one of them (although fair to say business conservatives sell us out on this issue as quick as progressive liberals).

I did read the article, and it is fair. but in the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, which is the case I referred to earlier, the subjects were foreign citizens that had established legal residency in the U.S. and gave birth to their children here, and subsequently left the country; they were denied re-entry, hence the case that eventually made it to the Supreme Court.

That was the LAST case that made it to the Court, and as you correctly note, any other cases that were rejected afterwards were rejected on issues of 'standing', not on issues of 'validity'.

SO the short of it is, NO, it has NOT been ruled upon, and therefore the very real possibility that children of illegal immigrants and foreign visitors that have not established legal residency in the U.S. cannot be considered citizens of the U.S. and can be subject to deportation.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: lakesidepark

It is not overblown, that is just another liberal progressive talking point to obscure the true problem.

And your usual right wing complaints are covering up the real problem. That problem isn't the illegals but rather the companies and other people who employ the illegals. If these people were to start facing jail time for being so cheap that they would rather hire an illegal instead American so they could increase their profits then the illegal problem would solve itself.

I DON"T disagree! Yes we should enforce ALL the laws! Right-wing business Republicans have as much to do with this problem as left-wing progressives! You get it!

And, please don't try that grouping my discussion with 'usual right-wing complaints'. More dog-whistling and name calling. You can call me a Constitutionalist. Obey the law as it was written, and change it if you don't like it.