Posted on 05/29/2002 2:42:12 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Tortoise disquises?
LOL!
After the first few dozen tumble, the other invaders will get the hint.
The biggest cruise ships only hold 4,500 passengers.
Maybe 3 million surfboards? LOL
They'll take a boat ride and go around it. They'll bribe soldiers to look the other way for a while. They'll stage multiple diversions along the wall. They'll have their associates inside the US stage diversions. They will destroy or steal sensor elements.
Sorry, Jethro, but you are not thinking this thing through in nearly enough depth.
The last time I looked it was land locked, save for a small section of the Pacific ocean.
Try again....
And those estimates are the most hysterical of all. If that was the case, then the "8 to 11 million" figure y'all love to cite should be closer to 30 million.
The biggest cruise ships only hold 4,500 passengers.
In rather high luxury and low density.
Are you saying that the boats could only make ONE trip in a year? One relatively small boat, ten illegals each trip, one week per trip. Congrats, that's 520 a year, from ONE boat. There's probably at least a few hundred small boats in Mexican ports. Ten illegals could also be put in one shipping container. How many shipping containers come through American ports? How many get opened?
We don't have too abide by the false interpretation of the 14th Amendment that allows children born to non-citizens on American soil to be considered American citizens. Especially not on that 100 yards of American soil.
You need to give this some serious thought.
You're either ceding the land to Mexico, or you're creating the mother of all anchor baby nightmares.
We don't have too abide by the false interpretation of the 14th Amendment that allows children born to non-citizens on American soil to be considered American citizens. Especially not on that 100 yards of American soil.
Sorry. The wording of the 14th Amendment was very specific, and the Supreme Court does not agree with your interpretation.
You need to give this some serious thought.
I already have. You're either going to cede the land to Mexico, (which will in turn bring into question the Gadsden Purchase and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo--and you do NOT want to do that), or you're going to have to write a Constitutional Amendment AND get 38 states to ratify it.
(1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
...and of the state wherein they reside.
This was, clearly, never meant to be 'The Anchor Baby Amendment'. This was meant to apply to LEGAL IMMIGRANTS to this country that had been granted residency in a state.
If a woman walks past the signs that say U.S. Border and under the wire and fences already there, then lays down on a blanket and has a baby, that doesn't make her a LEGAL resident of any state. This Amendment doesn't apply to her and her baby.
This is more liberal 'flim-flam'.
Put it in front of the Supreme Court, now. A majority will decide against this 'Anchor Baby' nonsense.
LOL
And thus the origin of "The Anchor Baby" problem.
This was, clearly, never meant to be 'The Anchor Baby Amendment'.
You're going to have to offer more proof than a bare assertion. Perhaps you can post the relevant statements of legislative intent--say, the statements of the drafters of the 14th Amendment?
This was meant to apply to LEGAL IMMIGRANTS to this country that had been granted residency in a state.
And those persons BORN here.
If a woman walks past the signs that say U.S. Border and under the wire and fences already there, then lays down on a blanket and has a baby, that doesn't make her a LEGAL resident of any state. This Amendment doesn't apply to her and her baby.
Sorry, kiddo--it applies to the baby, and by extension to the mother, unless you care to establish lots of orphanages.. The baby was born within the territory of the United States, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States--the baby is a US citizen.
This is more liberal 'flim-flam'.
Nope. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is the only part that is relatively easy to understand.
Put it in front of the Supreme Court, now. A majority will decide against this 'Anchor Baby' nonsense.
Let's see, we have Stevens, Breyer, Bader-Ginsburg, and David Souter on the liberal side. We have Rehnquist who bounces either way. O'Connor is a little liberal, but she isn't the sort to make stuff up out of whole cloth, she'll probably go with the language of the 14th as written. Scalia and Thomas will also
We have here a case where the liberals will like the outcome, and the conservatives will be forced to hold their nose and vote with the liberals because of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. My estimate: with the current court, it will go 9-0 against you, with several opinions ranging from Breyer and Bader-Ginsburg waxing eloquent about slavery, and Scalia and Thomas saying "look, if you didn't want it to SAY that, then you shouldn't have WRITTEN and PASSED that."
Be careful what you ask for. You may very well get it.
BTW, this is why Constitutional Amendments need to be written VERY carefully. We have a time bomb waiting inside the 25th Amendment because of similarly poor writing.
The word 'and' in legal documents means AND, not OR. "...and of the state wherein they reside.", no LEGAL RESIDENCY, no citizenship.
Your take on the Supreme Court's view is academic, though. What do we lose by running it past them to see if you've guessed correctly? Nothing, the ILLEGAL ALIENS are already getting away with this liberal 'flim-flam'.
I, myself, don't believe this 'Anchor Baby' scam will pass the majority's scrutiny.
I believe that the majority of the Supreme Court will find it unfair that someone can use a scam like this to leapfrog ahead of others that have abided by our laws and waited in line for years for a chance to immigrate, LEGALLY.
A variant (and not much of one) of that argument was tried in the South during the latter 1870s, after Reconstruction ended; it was shot down, and Mr. Crow had to find another way to go about his business. I'll go look up the specific case. The issue is not the clarity of the language; it's not FUZZY enough to support your view.
Your take on the Supreme Court's view is academic, though. What do we lose by running it past them to see if you've guessed correctly? Nothing, the ILLEGAL ALIENS are already getting away with this liberal 'flim-flam'.
Except that you've wasted valuable time that SHOULD have been spent on fixing the anchor baby issue the only way it CAN be fixed--by Constitutional amendment. You will also have made a great fool of yourself, and allowed yourself to be painted as a crackpot ignoramus.
I, myself, don't believe this 'Anchor Baby' scam will pass the majority's scrutiny.
I, myself, having actually read some of the various Supreme Court decisions, do not agree with you, for the reasons already stated. Stare decisis is a big stumbling block here.
I believe that the majority of the Supreme Court will find it unfair that someone can use a scam like this to leapfrog ahead of others that have abided by our laws and waited in line for years for a chance to immigrate, LEGALLY.
Which ones? Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Bader-Ginsburg are a solid block of four. Two of the remaining five will likely vote with them, because of the plain language of the text and stare decisis, and will not be swayed by arguments of "fairness" (life, after all, is not fair, and Judge Thomas could probably talk your ear off on that subject after the Anita Hill mess) not grounded in Constitutional law.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States.
not this:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
All of those words, you want to pretend aren't there, mean something. Don't you think? Otherwise, why are they there? Hmmm?
And please allow me to submit that if we can't stop the flood of illegals breaking into America, our armed forces have no business searching caves in Afghanistan for bearded goat humpers...
Now, go away and don't come back until your willing to become a real American and help with the defense of our country.
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.