Anchor baby: a tale of hypocrisy

originally posted by: reldra

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.

Didn't necessarily tell her how to handle her lawn, but she seemed to infer that she needed to pay illegals $60 to cut her lawn, and woe is her, just who would she get to do it for $60 if the illegals weren't here???

I considered it a silly argument just piling on, so I gave her a smart-ass remark to smash it down. Then she stared calling me a hater. So much for that.

You do not have a right to not be offended.

The first amendment pretty much negates that thought.

Being "offended" by someone else's words, is NOT the fault of the speaker. It's the fault of the listener.

If I say "anchor baby" or "American born child of undocumented aliens" the meaning is exactly the same. So you are therefore offended by the FORM of the word. You're offended by letters, and not the meaning.

Silly really.

a reply to: poncho1982

But you do have the right to be offended as well, and if you wan to voice that then again that is your right.

And the first has zero to do with that, so tired of that stance. The first protects you from the state and grants the freedom of press/protest.

We can just call them children, since that is what they are.

originally posted by: muse7
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.

I'd ask you to cite that case, but I know you can't because the issue of anchor babies has never gone before the Supreme Court.

Got tired of seeing this disinformation being spread around, so I wrote a thread. Check it out, you might learn something.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wonder if Popeye was an anchor baby? He turned out to be a hellovah sailor.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: poncho1982

We can just call them children, since that is what they are.

We could.

We can also call them anchor babies, because that is also what they are.
We could also call them illegal, as since the 14th Amendment does not apply to them, that is ALSO what they are.

Offended yet? Don't care.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist

originally posted by: muse7
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.

I'd ask you to cite that case, but I know you can't because the issue of anchor babies has never gone before the Supreme Court.

Got tired of seeing this disinformation being spread around, so I wrote a thread. Check it out, you might learn something.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks for your input, I will go read your thread and reference it when I address this. Hopefully I captured the gist of it on my page 3 postings in this thread, but am perfectly willing to add your information to mine.

Someone has to fight this mis-information that the progressives AND the establishment Repubs keep piling on!

a reply to: lakesidepark

The 14th does despite what you have to say. People just want to interpret it to fit what they want.

I am not offended at all that you feel the need to call them what anchor babies, I'll just call them children and we can both be happy.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Wrong.
Words have defined meanings. Laws are not subject to open interpretation. You can sit there and type something all you want, but that won't make it true.

Read the text yourself. Basic reading comprehension should be enough.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: lakesidepark

The 14th does NOT despite what you have to say. People just want to interpret it to fit what they want. So they can keep flooding the country with cheap labor and democratic voters.

Fixed it fer ya.

Looks like people are missing the point and they continue to damage their own ideologies reputation. This is all very nice and everything, but history won't agree with your outdated arguments. There is no right or wrong political ideology that only exists on a subjective level. However there is clearly a disconnect between respectful social interaction and a market of the Republican and conservative base...

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Basic reading comprehension should be enough.

Two way street bub, you need to comprehend what jurisdiction means and who that clause was written for.
Once these illegals have immunity to our laws get back to me.
a reply to: lakesidepark

That's cute, don't have anything new to say so just say the same thing over.
Ya the democrats are all about the cheap labor, that isn't a conservative stand point at all.
Oh and love the voting garbage, the most repeated nonsense with zero evidence to back it up.

The 14th says what it says in clear text and has been backed up by two cases.
But don't let that get in the way!

Are you offended yet that we are trying to treat children like human beings and not some sub class that doesn't deserve to breath the same air as us?

originally posted by: Sremmos80

That's cute, don't have anything new to say so just say the same thing over.

Until you actually respond to it without talking points, yes.

Ya the democrats are all about the cheap labor, that isn't a conservative stand point at all.
Oh and love the voting garbage, the most repeated nonsense with zero evidence to back it up.

The Democrats are about the voting garbage as they are the ones demogoging the issue, but its the establishment Republicans about the cheap labor....just to clear that up. FYI that was stated previously, that both the Dems and the Repubs are guilty.

The 14th says what it says in clear text and has been backed up by two cases.
But don't let that get in the way!

The 14th says what it says, and it is clear that 'jurisdiction' is defined by Congress, not the courts. Courts interpret jurisdiction, not define it. And at this point the Supreme Court has never interpreted jurisdiction to include children of parents within this country illegally.

Are you offended yet that we are trying to treat children like human beings and not some sub class that doesn't deserve to breath the same air as us?

I am offended that you are ignoring the suffering of citizens, (especially the unskilled laborers, the construction workers, the urban blacks, etc.) and trying to use an Amendment originally written to grant rights to those that the U.S. Government stripped from them by force, and instead using that same Amendment to further impoverish the lower rungs of the economic ladder in this country.

Otherwise, no. Nothing against children, but ignoring one group of suffering people who are legal citizens, who are being harmed thru no fault of their own, while granting rights to children placed in that position by the illegal actions of their parents should be offensive.

a reply to: lakesidepark

Conservatives love some cheap labor as well, that is not an establishment thing.
You are right, it says what it says. You have to interpret the jurisdiction if you want to say it doesn't apply to aliens.
They are under our law on our soil, so under our jurisdiction.
Diplomats of foreign powers are not hence the language.
Again right there in plain text and backed up.

I am not ignoring their suffering, I can say that kids born here deserve to stay here without ignore the plight of others.
Not that hard of a concept. The parents of these kids are not here stealing comfy desk jobs or high paid construction jobs.

They are picking you food out of the fields, so you can get them at your local grocery store at a reasonable price.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: lakesidepark

Conservatives love some cheap labor as well, that is not an establishment thing.

Agreed. Part of the problem. When did I say I was conservative?

You are right, it says what it says. You have to interpret the jurisdiction if you want to say it doesn't apply to aliens.
They are under our law on our soil, so under our jurisdiction.

Only because they are not being deported. And they are only under our CRIMINAL jurisdiction, that is a big difference than the 'jurisdiction' referred to in the 14th amendment. Criminal law is the only law they are subject to, otherwise they are deported as that is also a criminal law.

Diplomats of foreign powers are not hence the language.
Again right there in plain text and backed up.

Diplomats are here legally, the only group here legally that are not under our political jurisdiction. They are under our criminal jurisdiction, as every person within the borders is under criminal jurisdiction. See what happens if a diplomat commits murder.

I am not ignoring their suffering, I can say that kids born here deserve to stay here without ignore the plight of others.
Not that hard of a concept. The parents of these kids are not here stealing comfy desk jobs or high paid construction jobs.

They are picking you food out of the fields, so you can get them at your local grocery store at a reasonable price.

Yes, they do take not only the high-paying construction jobs but all of the lower-paying construction jobs. Framing, bricklaying, roofing, siding jobs, and many more. They take the restaurant jobs that teenagers used to take. The other hospitality jobs that college kids needed. And maybe, we need to pay a bit more for our food, and give those jobs to citizens, if it means more can work to afford it.

We can't keep ignoring the fact that this country is not paying its bills, and there will come a point that we will default on our debts. The immigration issue (both legal and illegal) is one part of many issues that need to be addressed to change the direction of the country.

Feel-good platitudes about 'the children' ignore the facts that we have citizens that are hurting, and we are soon to make hard choices, that will hurt more people, because we are not paying for what we are spending. Currently, the children are being allowed to stay, AND we are ignoring the plight of others.

If there are people here that fall under the jurisdiction of another country, and those people can't take care of themselves, and we can't take care of our own people....someone will be making decisions on who will suffer and who will not. If that's cruel...well it is a cruel world, nothing is fair. We are broke, these people need to go, and their home countries can step up to the plate and take care of their own, and we need to get our house in order if we have any hopes of once again being able to help others in their own countries again. but right now, we can no longer afford to help.

a reply to: lakesidepark

Only because they are not being deported. And they are only under our CRIMINAL jurisdiction, that is a big difference than the 'jurisdiction' referred to in the 14th amendment.

What is the jurisdiction then?

Yes, they do take not only the high-paying construction jobs but all of the lower-paying construction jobs. Framing, bricklaying, roofing, siding jobs, and many more. They take the restaurant jobs that teenagers used to take. The other hospitality jobs that college kids needed. And maybe, we need to pay a bit more for our food, and give those jobs to citizens, if it means more can work to afford it.

And those problems are with the people giving the jobs, not the person taking them!
I never said you were a conservative, just that conservatives love the cheap labor and they are not establishment.

As long as we keep paying for wars that we don't need to be in, I won't buy the we can't afford it nonsense.
We can, we just choose not to.
Get them paying taxes and lets get over it all.

We can agree to disagree on this.
Even though the facts are in plain text and has been challenged and upheld. but I guess that doesn't matter.'

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: lakesidepark


Only because they are not being deported. And they are only under our CRIMINAL jurisdiction, that is a big difference than the 'jurisdiction' referred to in the 14th amendment.


What is the jurisdiction then?

Political.

Yes, they do take not only the high-paying construction jobs but all of the lower-paying construction jobs. Framing, bricklaying, roofing, siding jobs, and many more. They take the restaurant jobs that teenagers used to take. The other hospitality jobs that college kids needed. And maybe, we need to pay a bit more for our food, and give those jobs to citizens, if it means more can work to afford it.


And those problems are with the people giving the jobs, not the person taking them!
I never said you were a conservative, just that conservatives love the cheap labor and they are not establishment.

As long as we keep paying for wars that we don't need to be in, I won't buy the we can't afford it nonsense.
We can, we just choose not to.
Get them paying taxes and lets get over it all.

We can agree to disagree on this.
Even though the facts are in plain text and has been challenged and upheld. but I guess that doesn't matter.'

We need to obey our laws, if we did, the people giving the jobs would be arrested and fined and imprisoned. I agree that is a HUGE part of the problem.

Paying for wars we don't need to be in is also a HUGE part of the problem, and that is also one of those played by both sides (Obama loves him some drone-killing and stirring up crap in the ME, Clinton likes to send them arms, Bush likes to bomb them...) So we seem to have some agreement there.

Where we don't agree is the intention of the 14th amendment, the original intention was to grant citizenship to former slaves, later ruled by the Supreme Court to include Native Americans, and a final (FINAL) ruling in 1898 that grants citizenship to children born of those that were legal residents that fell under our political jurisdiction. And there has NEVER been a ruling that addressed any children of one that entered this country illegally.

I don't accept your assertion of your understanding of 'jurisdiction' and you don't accept mine, and neither of us are Supreme Court judges, so I guess we will have to wait until it is challenged - which will be SOON, if some have their way.

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.

No, they have rules that the child of a legal immigrant is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

There has never been a ruling on the children of illegal aliens, and the Congress has never passed legislation that says the children of illegals are citizens.

We've been sold a bill of false goods by the powers that be.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: poncho1982

But you do have the right to be offended as well, and if you wan to voice that then again that is your right.

And the first has zero to do with that, so tired of that stance. The first protects you from the state and grants the freedom of press/protest.

We can just call them children, since that is what they are.

I never said you don't, or can't.

But be aware, that it's entirely on YOU. YOU choose to be offended by words. More than that, by words that mean the exact same thing as other words that magically are not offensive.

So its a specific arrangement of letters that sound a certain way that is offensive? Not the meaning?

Is it "anchor" or "babies" that's the offensive one? Or both?

Or is it the false feeling of intent that YOU choose to adhere to those specific words?

You do not see how silly and narrow minded that is?

Because, to be fair, it really is.

Yes, they are children. Anchor children, if you prefer.

a reply to: poncho1982

It doesn't offend me in the slightest, but I can totally see why the mother of these kids would be.

I bet you wouldn't like people calling your child something derogatory either.
And lets not kid our self's and say it isn't meant to be taken that way, it is a negative term.

Just think it is so funny that the people that are so anti pc get their panties so far in a bunch when some one calls them out on it.
Can dish it out but can't take it.