Posted on 08/18/2010 2:06:34 PM PDT by Syncro
LOOK WHO'S 'NATIVIST' NOW!
August 18, 2010
"Nativism in American politics has become so rampant that it is considered scandalous in Republican circles for a judge to acknowledge paying any attention to foreign courts and their legal rulings." -- New York Times editorial, Aug. 3, 2010
The New York Times runs this same smug editorial every few months -- at least I think it's the same editorial -- to vent its spleen at conservatives who object to American judges relying on foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution.
But when it comes to anchor babies, The New York Times and the entire Democratic establishment plug their ears and hum rather than consider foreign laws on citizenship. (For more on this, see "Mexican immigration law versus U.S. immigration law.")
Needless to say, America is the only developed nation that allows illegal aliens to gain full citizenship for their children merely by dropping them on U.S. soil.
Take Sweden -- one of the left's favorite countries. Not only is there no birthright citizenship, but even the children of legal immigrants cannot become Swedish citizens simply by being born there. At least one parent must be a citizen for birth on Swedish soil to confer citizenship.
(Applicants also have to know the lyrics to at least one ABBA song, which explains why you don't see groups of Mexicans congregating outside Ikea stores.)
Liberals are constantly hectoring Americans to adopt Sweden's generous welfare policies without considering that one reason Sweden's welfare policies haven't bankrupted the country (yet) is that the Swedes don't grant citizenship to the children of any deadbeat who manages the spectacular feat of giving birth on Swedish soil.
In Britain, only birth to at least one British citizen or the highest class of legal immigrant, a "settled" resident with the right to remain, such as Irish citizens, confers citizenship on a child born in England. And if the British birthright is through the father, he must be married to the mother (probably a relic from Victorian times when marriage was considered an important institution).
Even Canada, the country most similar to the United States, grants citizenship upon birth -- but excludes the noncitizen parents of anchor babies from receiving benefits, such as medical care, schooling and other free stuff given to Canadian citizens.
This email was sent to The Daily Caller from conservative pundit and author Ann Coulter in response to the announcement that WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah had dropped her as a speaker for an upcoming event.RonDog's note to WND: Don't piss off The Blonde One.
The email, which Coulter prefaced was written “in a rush” reads as follows:1) farah is doing this for PUBLICITY and publicity alone;2) this was an email exchange btwn friends and even though I didn’t expressly say “OFF THE RECORD” and I believe everything I said,
he’s a swine for using my private emails politely answering him.
why would he do such a despicable thing? … for PUBLICITY.
3) but now that he has, I will say that he could give less than two sh-ts about the conservative movement — as demonstrated by his promotion of the birther nonsense (long ago disproved by my newspaper, human events, also sweetness & light, american spectator and national review etc, etc etc).
He’s the only allegedly serious conservative pushing the birther thing. for ONE reason: to get hits on his website.
4) his group hadn’t come up for the money to book me for a speech, anyway, so he’s not canceling me from anything.
also, FYI; my fellow evangelicals — and I know lots and lots of ‘em — – all think it’s great that I’m doing this.
(of course, they know I’m not changing my mind on gay marriage even though I like gays.)
this is total b.s. for PUBLICITY by a publicity whore. Attack ann coulter, get publicity. liberals figured that out a long time ago, so he’s a little late to the party.
Sweetness and Light disproved the birth certificate issue?
Does anyone have a link to that?
Sweetness and Light disproved the birth certificate issue?LOL!Does anyone have a link to that?
I can only work one project at a time!Right now, I'm defending Ann's "gay outreach" program. :o)
Someone ELSE is going to have to defend her position on our "undocumented" Commander-in-Chief. ;)
ZING!! Good one.
I’m sorry, I should have put that to “all” instead of just you.
;)
Hey, whose turn is it to remind The New York Times that the legislative branch of our government is different from the judicial branch?
Alright, I'll do it this week, Ann, but I expect a personally autographed book in exchange. You can FReepmail me for an address. :)
Let me know if you'd like to be added to the Ann Coulter ping list.
Hey, whose turn is it to remind The New York Times that the legislative branch of our government is different from the judicial branch? - AnnYou want a personally autographed copy of Ann's NEW book?Alright, I'll do it this week, Ann, but I expect a personally autographed book in exchange. - jellybean
I thought that was supposed to be a SECRET! ;)
(I'll remind the the NYT next week about their misconstruations)
I already have all her other books! :)
I thought that was supposed to be a SECRET! ;)
Not anymore! LOL
She's always in the process of writing a new book. It's been a while, so a new one must be due soon. :)
Oh, thank goodness!! I don't want to be the only one wading into that swamp every week! :)
This looks like a good article for the
AFIRE ping list
:)
LOL. Oh that. Yes, I noticed.
Coulter for SCOTUS.
Impossible! She speaks to homosexuals!! Burn her!
One of the reasons she belongs on SCOTUS!
She will have to speak to Kagan...LOL.
LOL @ Monty Python link.
Good night, I gotta get outta here.
Watching Red Eye.
Perhaps speaking at HOMOCON is just practice then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.