BS. Remove the anchor baby provision and remove half the reason pregnant women trudge across the Rio Grande while 8.5 months pregnant.
It’s a tough debate that shouldn’t be; I think if you’re here illegally, having broken federal law, you and your children shouldn’t be entitled to anything. Period.
It would stop a lot of late term pregnant illegals. It would save money on Hospital maternity bills. Obama may as well put a free ATM machine on the border to dispense cash to the illegal invaders. Maybe that would stimulate the economy.
Wouldn’t a nationalized health care system also require a national registry with a huge new federal bureaucracy?
So libs are suddenly against tinkering with the Constitution and creating new bureaucracies?
All it does is takes the pressure off controlling the border. Illegals don’t care about the constitution or laws anyway.
If you control the border, you’ll have far fewer anchor babies.
There's little risk to the welfare of this country to change our system to conform to the way the world does it ~ and BTW, Mexico does it that way ~ not our way. They don't want American "tourist babies" showing up trying to run for Congress down there someday. Else, they'd have nothing but rich Americans running the country!
The Fort Worthless Star Telegram will always be for more Democrat votes, illegal or legal. Why is the USA the largest country that allows so-called “birthright citizenship?” No wonder other countries consider Uncle Sap a real patsy.
Borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for illegals from other countries to suck our shriveled welfare teat shows a total lack of brains on the part of US voters.
A half million anchor babies per year, nearly all of which were birthed for free, nearly all of which will recieve welfare, free education, healthcare and other benefits, nearly all of which are future dim voters who will petition all their relatives to enter the USA via chain migration.
Yeah, sure, pretty inconsequential.
I will not even address the Rule of Law issue, since that apparently is not a high priority — or any priority at all — at the Star-Telegram. But here we have a Texas newspaper that does not understand that the rest of us do not want to continue to pay taxes to SUBSIDIZE someone else’s cheap labor, nor do we want to pay for that cheap labor to breed. The costs of illegals — their medical care, turning our schools upside down to educate their young, countless other costs — are not being born by the people who benefit from having cheap employees. Those costs are being born by the rest of us, and we are not happy. It is, in effect, a transfer of wealth from us to them. These people are parasites. That realization is a large part of what is driving the birthright citizenship debate.
Interpreting the 14th Amendment to extend citizenship to the newborns of illegals is a relatively recent concept, certainly within the last sixty years.
The “birthright citizenship” interpretation championed by the left (and, let’s face it: it was the left that trotted out that misappplication of the 14th) is rebutted by posing this simple question:
If a pregnant member of an invading army (say, for the purpose of illustration, a nurse with the Chinese military) delivers her spawn while serving with an invading Chinese force, would that baby thus be entitled to automatic ‘birthright citizenship?’ Of course not. And neither should the spawn of an invading Mexican or any other nationality.
Yeah, put a 20 foot strawman right in the title and the rest follows easily...
Geez, even the leftist Steve Blow from the Dallas Morning News thinks that bestowing citizenship on the children of illegals is nuts. Screw you, Startlegram.