Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

I'm not making this up - this editorial was posted two days ago - no apologies for Anchor Babies ... can't make this stuff up ...
1 posted on 08/20/2015 4:32:29 PM PDT by 11th_VA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: 11th_VA

So they have difficulty in China because their children weren’t born in China??? Very interesting.

Son the point of this is what? We are supposed to feel sorry for those mothers and kids, who in attempting to have the best of both worlds, find there are problems with birth tourism???


2 posted on 08/20/2015 4:37:44 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 11th_VA
The citizenship clause says that for a person to be a citizen they must be "born in the US" AND subject to the jurisdiction. Else, they must be naturalized by terms explicitly defined by Congress. Congress has passed no statute defining babies born to aliens as citizens of the United States, much less illegal aliens.

It is abundantly clear, from both the historic record and the legal definition of the term "subject" contemporary with the date at which the 14th Amendment was drafted, that children of aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. They are instead WITHIN the jurisdiction of the US. They are not citizens of the US.

That the 14th Amendment circumscribes who CAN be a citizen, and the fact that the Constitution is a limiting document that disallows anything it does not enumerate, means that Congress MAY NOT confer automatic citizenship on anchor babies. They must be naturalized as adults.

The burden of proof, as has has been placed upon people who oppose existing policy, in fact belongs placed upon those who advocate for it.

4 posted on 08/20/2015 4:44:36 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 11th_VA
Are 'anchor' babies becoming more of a loadstone than a plus?

I don't know if the author intended it, but the title is a bit amusing. There is no such term as "LOADstone," but that would be about right. The correct term would be "lodestone" which would make them attractive, as the material by that name is magnetic. More broadly, a "lode" is a concentration of any mineable mineral resources which would make them an asset and a resource.

The author needs a swift dose of grammar school.

5 posted on 08/20/2015 4:52:50 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 11th_VA

Loadstone” This headline writer had heard the word “lodestone” and hasn’t seen it in print.He does not have any idea what it means. He thinks he knows because he knows that word “load” means something. “Loadstone” (lodestone) means a big rock that is a heavy load to carry, right? The writer should limit himself to words of no more than one syllable or 4 letters.


9 posted on 08/20/2015 5:15:09 PM PDT by arthurus (It's true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 11th_VA

A lodestone is a natural magnet, not a burden.........


12 posted on 08/20/2015 6:25:51 PM PDT by Red Badger (READ MY LIPS: NO MORE BUSHES!...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 11th_VA

How about this def ?
Anchorites= Babies (baby pl) born in the US of foreign citizens who are foreign subjects or of emmigrants entering here illegally. When born in the US of both parents who are not US citizens do not become citizens of the US period. Hence should not be entitled to the benefits and protection of being one.


15 posted on 08/20/2015 7:19:13 PM PDT by mosesdapoet (Some of my best rebuttals are in FR's along with meaningless venting no one reads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson