View Full Version : There is no such thing as anchor babies
Perhaps, if this is right. This is something that I read and thought some here might enjoy it
"Apparently, over 12,000 babies are born from illegal aliens just in Dallas Texas every year. As soon as these women leave the hospital, the majority goes to a welfare office and receive food stamps and other benefits.
One illegal + one illegal = 2 illegals
Such is the law of mathematics, law of reason and logic.
Where is it written that if an illegal alien gives birth in the US, the child is automatically a US citizen?
Arguments (and/or propaganda) has it that it originates with the 14th Amendment to wit:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,.............................., are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
However, the 14th really states, .....when the blank spaces are read in between the comas, ......"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"......
Now an Illegal alien is not "a subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; he is not a member of the body politic; he is not part of the social contract; he is not a taxpayer; and he is not entitled to any benefits or privileges whatsoever.
Furthermore, when I did research on the 14th, to my knowledge, there were no case laws nor any written laws that proclaim that an illegal alien giving birth in the US that the said child is automatically a US citizen.... And it is also well recognized that children born from ambassadors residing temporarily in the US are not citizens of the United States.
Actually, under the common law, it is stipulated quite the contrary as the status of a child follows the status of the mother.. (Partus Sequitur Ventrum.)
Even under the Laws of Slavery, a child born of a slave woman was recognized as a slave even if the father was a free person. And if a child was born of a free woman and the father was a slave, the child was regarded in law as a free person... these ancient tenets and Maxims were also recognized under the laws of Bastardy.
In summary, US citizenship can be lawfully acquired through birth by US Citizens, residing here or abroad, by naturalization, by marriage, and by conquest.
Nothing is written that US Citizenship can be acquired through fraudulent means, violation of law, or by any illegal acts.
It would defy reason and common sense, and would contradict maxims of law and judicial tenets.
And not so long ago, in order to be naturalized, a person had to renounce all allegiance to any foreign countries, kings, princes, or prelates."
Moose-Knuckle
06-25-10, 15:49
Yeap, at Parkland Hospital it's so bad that Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price sent a bill to the Mexican consulate here in Dallas for the tab. Of course the noble Mexican government laughed at it. According to international law when a foreign national is in another country and they require hospital services their home nation is supposed to reimburse the hospital for the first 72 hours of care.
It's so bad in Dallas that Parkland is know as the "Hispanic Healthcare Hospital". :mad:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/061206dnmetmoms.d9b9669.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/091507dnbushispanichealth.29186bf.html
The original law concerning "anchor babies" was meant for babies of African slaves and Native Americans being born here in the US.
Come to think of it now that we are on the subject, I wonder POTUS ever got his citizenship since is actually from Kenya???
Come to think of it now that we are on the subject, I wonder POTUS ever got his citizenship since is actually from Kenya???
:rolleyes:Please don't, that is not the point of the thread. The point is that according to the constitution, just because someone is born here does not make them a citizen. They are only a citizen if they are born to citizen parents, or at least parent.
I agree wholeheartedly with the article. I also think it's about time we review ALL Amendments after the Tenth Amendment for Constitutionality... IMHO it's the *only* way to arrest the onslaught against us.
I agree wholeheartedly with the article. I also think it's about time we review ALL Amendments after the Tenth Amendment for Constitutionality... IMHO it's the *only* way to arrest the onslaught against us.
Agreed. Just off the top of my head, the 16th & 17th need to go first
Nationality by birth, or jus soli, is a well settle legal principal that is nothing new. Neither is jus sanguinis, the little tidbit that a bunch a people can't wrap their minds around when it comes to the CINC.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html
Interesting read. Out of curiosity, would the fact that the parents were here legally and in a kind of permanent resident status have anything to do with it? I am not being smart, I mean it in a genuine question. I am by no means a law expert.
That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence
Agreed. Just off the top of my head, the 16th & 17th need to go first
So would the 14th as we already had equal protection under the law. We also need to review the Original 13th Amendment as well... makes a very interesting study, btw.
So would the 14th as we already had equal protection under the law. We also need to review the Original 13th Amendment as well... makes a very interesting study, btw.
Once again, agreed. Those were just off the top
"Interesting read. Out of curiosity, would the fact that the parents were here legally and in a kind of permanent resident status have anything to do with it? I am not being smart, I mean it in a genuine question. I am by no means a law expert."
US v. Ark is one of the longest SCOTUS rulings ever written, the detail in the ruling leaves no doubt about the SCOTUS opinion on the matter. Whether the parents are legally or illegally present is immaterial to the nationality of a child born in the United States. Like I said, this is long settled law, time to move on.
Here is the entire ruling for those that might actually read it.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
Here is the entire ruling for those that might actually read it.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
A little arrogant of a comment. Thank you for the link though, I will read it.
No, the "actually read it" comment was intended for those that would post "the 14th says this or that" long after when in fact all of their arguments are defeated in U.S. v. Ark, which is not a recent liberal ruling but was in fact authored by a conservative bench back in 1898. It is a very detailed ruling that addresses common law, Federal Code of the time, history, and the 14th Amendment. There is no wiggle room.
Some more "light reading" for you A-Man as I see you are genuinely intrigued by this.
PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=457&invol=202
Very interesting thoughts, OP.
kmrtnsn; I'll read those links when my head can actually process info correctly, those look like very informative reads.
I consider myself incredibly lucky being born here in the States (and holding dual citizenship). Made a lot of things so much easier, and allowed me to do things I wouldn't have gotten a chance to do.
I'm with you guys 100%. I lament the fact that 99% of the American population show such a high level of apathy towards such topics. These topics shape the very existence of the Unites States of America.
Maybe I am missing something?
Page 169 U. S. 732
I am of opinion that the President and Senate by treaty, and the Congress by naturalization, have the power, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment, to prescribe that all persons of a particular race, or their children, cannot become citizens, and that it results that the consent to allow such persons to come into and reside within our geographical limits does not carry with it the imposition of citizenship upon children born to them while in this country under such consent, in spite of treaty and statute.
In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens.
Belmont31R
06-26-10, 07:35
I agree wholeheartedly with the article. I also think it's about time we review ALL Amendments after the Tenth Amendment for Constitutionality... IMHO it's the *only* way to arrest the onslaught against us.
How can you question something in the Constitution for constitutionality?
An amendment makes whatever is in the amendment constitutional just by virtue of being part of it.
How can you question something in the Constitution for constitutionality?
An amendment makes whatever is in the amendment constitutional just by virtue of being part of it.
I believe someone questioned the 18th amendment.
How can you question something in the Constitution for constitutionality?
An amendment makes whatever is in the amendment constitutional just by virtue of being part of it.
By that I mean is the Amendent LAWFUL with respect to The Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rightd as opposed to be LEGAL by sheer fact that it's passed. It's similar to CASE LAW in which I can rule anything capriciously. If it stands then it's considered "LAW". CASE LAW is very dangerous. Just because the Supreme Court INTERPRETED Law one way does not make it LAWFUL.
Those "dead white males" were pretty freakin' bright and if we'd but read their letters and the Debates (Fed and Anti-Fed Papers) we'd not require the questionable "Men (and women) in Black" to "interpret" what we can fully comprehend.
If you have the time research how the Southern States were coerced back into the Union and the how the Amendments were gotten rid of (Original 13th) and added 14th, etc., etc.
Perna,
Yes, you did. What you are quoting is part of one of two dissenting opinions (they get published too) from the 8-2 ruling (one Justice, McKenna, was recently seated and took no part in decision). The ruling is affirmed at 169/705, everything thereafter is part of the two dissenting opinions.
Ken
Moose-Knuckle
06-26-10, 09:21
:rolleyes:Please don't, that is not the point of the thread. The point is that according to the constitution, just because someone is born here does not make them a citizen. They are only a citizen if they are born to citizen parents, or at least parent.
Maybe you don’t see the correlation between the two but I do. If a woman was a US citizen and she birthed a child in Kenya and raised it in Indonesia does that make it a US citizen?
If and when SCOTUS wants to finally make a decision on what exactly a citizen is then they need to address the issue with Obama and his Hawaiian birth certificate. In a perfect world…
Moose, read up on jus sanguinis.
RogerinTPA
06-26-10, 09:48
The laws pertaining to this issue makes me want to projectile vomit. They should be deleted or replaced to add: If the parents are illegal, the children born in this country by the parents, shall not be deemed US citizens. They will be declared citizens to whichever country their parents are from, then collectively deported before the child's 1st birthday.
Again I am no expert, I have my opinions but they always subject to change as long as there is fact. I am just now starting to learn some of this and am trying to follow the facts. I fired over the comments that kmrtnsn made to the person that wrote the quote of my original post and this was his response.
"The doctrine of "just solis" (law of the soil) and "jus sanguini" (law of the blood and/or blood line) is an old French concept of law recently referred to and mentioned by President Sarcozi in an address dealing with immigration.
The Jus sanguini doctrine was also legislated into law and widely accepted in Germany under the Third Reich by declaring that all persons of German blood are citizens of Germany.
Interestingly, all Jews, wherever in the world they may reside, are citizens of Israel... but nobody dares to state that Jews are Nazis....I am familiar with this case. US vs Wong Kim Ark does not deal with "Illegal Entry."
The issue that children born of parents who violated the law and entered the US through illegal entry, and to claim US citizenship can not be sustained by existing case law nor by the written law.
Also notice the terms "and not subject to a foreign power." (see civil right act as mentioned in the holding of Wong Kim Ark.)
There lies another argument... as Mexican nationals are Mexican citizens by Mexican law even if they hold a US citizen status. (i.e, Duo Citizenship.)
Therefore, to state through the reading of the 14th Amend. that children born in the US through illegal entry and having allegiance to a foreign power are citizens of the US flies against reason and common sens......
I believe that it is unsustainable."
Any change in the basis of deriving U.S. Citizenship by birth place or blood line will require a change to the 14th Amendment or SCOTUS has to overturn Ark. Either is a monumental task that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Moose-Knuckle
06-26-10, 10:37
The laws pertaining to this issue makes me want to projectile vomit. They should be deleted or replaced to add: If the parents are illegal, the children born in this country by the parents, shall not be deemed US citizens. They will be declared citizens to whichever country their parents are from, then collectively deported before the child's 1st birthday.
While you are at it...
A lot of "immigrants" have "duel" citizenship. I think that is a crock, you can vote in two nations elections, etc. And don't even get me started on the whole courts issue, like when a person in US custody has duel citizenship and they get life or death in prison for murder and their home nation wants them back all of a sudden. :mad:
Moose-Knuckle
06-26-10, 10:39
Any change in the basis of deriving U.S. Citizenship by birth place or blood line will require a change to the 14th Amendment or SCOTUS has to overturn Ark. Either is a monumental task that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
I think with the Obama adminastration filing a law suit against AZ it might speed up things a bit. Cause POTUS wants it clear only the federal goverment can rule who a citizen is or not. Kind of ironic isn't?
I doubt that the DOJ will actually file against the AZ law. The AZ AG's office did their research on this one before it was enacted. I doubt that the DOJ could get it overturned and failing to do so would be a huge embarrassment to the administration. Sometimes it is better not to fight a battle when you know you are going to lose it anyway.
Maybe you don’t see the correlation between the two but I do. If a woman was a US citizen and she birthed a child in Kenya and raised it in Indonesia does that make it a US citizen?
If and when SCOTUS wants to finally make a decision on what exactly a citizen is then they need to address the issue with Obama and his Hawaiian birth certificate. In a perfect world…I know I said that I did not want to go there and I am sure that I will regret it but....As bad as Clinton wanted the Presidency, and as sneaky and underhanded as she is, don't you think that if there was really an issue with his birth she would have brought it out. The only reason that he has not produced it is to distract his detractors and have them on a wild goose chase. Now the only argument that I have seen merit in and have not heard raised is related to his stay in Indonesia. Now I have not researched this personally, so it is total hearsay as far as I am concerned but it makes sense. As I was told, during the time he was in Indonesia the gov there only allowed citizens to live there. To be a citizen there during that time it was a requirement that you renounce all other citizenship's and allegiances. Which his mother would have had to do for him as her legal guardian. But again I don't know. I just wish people would concentrate on all the reasons to get him and the rest of congress out of office. There are soooo many reasons that are real, in the open and provable to get rid of him and his ilk.
Moose-Knuckle
06-26-10, 11:45
I know I said that I did not want to go there and I am sure that I will regret it but....As bad as Clinton wanted the Presidency, and as sneaky and underhanded as she is, don't you think that if there was really an issue with his birth she would have brought it out. The only reason that he has not produced it is to distract his detractors and have them on a wild goose chase. Now the only argument that I have seen merit in and have not heard raised is related to his stay in Indonesia. Now I have not researched this personally, so it is total hearsay as far as I am concerned but it makes sense. As I was told, during the time he was in Indonesia the gov there only allowed citizens to live there. To be a citizen there during that time it was a requirement that you renounce all other citizenship's and allegiances. Which his mother would have had to do for him as her legal guardian. But again I don't know. I just wish people would concentrate on all the reasons to get him and the rest of congress out of office. There are soooo many reasons that are real, in the open and provable to get rid of him and his ilk.
Not to derail your thread, but we are talking about birth and citizenship. I'll leave it at that, if you don't think that Obama is from Kenya search around on Google the evidence is out there. Clinton is pawn to her handlers same as Obama. They do as they are instructed or they wind up like JFK.
It does not matter one iota if CINC was born in France, Kenya, Indonesia, or on the moon. ONE of his parents was a U.S. Citizen. He derives his citizenship by blood, from that one parent; that is all it takes. It is the law. It is well settled law, there is no getting around that part of the equation. There are thousands of children born to U.S. citizens outside of the U.S. every year. Some never land in the U.S. until they are adults but once they do they can claim their status and obtain a U.S. Passport and all that they are entitled to, under the law. No one from the Republican Party, nor the loosing Democratic contender has contested CINC's ability to be President based on his citizenship because they all know the law, those making a big deal out of this just don't understand it.
Moose-Knuckle
06-26-10, 16:40
It does not matter one iota if CINC was born in France, Kenya, Indonesia, or on the moon. ONE of his parents was a U.S. Citizen. He derives his citizenship by blood, from that one parent; that is all it takes. It is the law. It is well settled law, there is no getting around that part of the equation. There are thousands of children born to U.S. citizens outside of the U.S. every year. Some never land in the U.S. until they are adults but once they do they can claim their status and obtain a U.S. Passport and all that they are entitled to, under the law. No one from the Republican Party, nor the loosing Democratic contender has contested CINC's ability to be President based on his citizenship because they all know the law, those making a big deal out of this just don't understand it.
Again, not to try and derail the OP thread. But this ties into and defines what a US citizen is exactly.
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html
US Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United
States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an
Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided,
That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not
in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person
to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying
possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United
States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States
or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such
person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying
possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United
States who has been physically present in the United States or
one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one
year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is
a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United
States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States
who has been physically present in the United States or one of
its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at
any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States
while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his
attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in
the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United
States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an
alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to
the birth of such person, was physically present in the United
States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods
totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were
after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any
periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United
States, or periods of employment with the United States
Government or with an international organization as that term is
defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This provison shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24,
1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of
an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United
States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the
United States.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5203+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%288%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281401%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
So the question begs to be answered is Obama's father a US citizen, a US resident, or neither?
Edited to say: We can have our views all we want on anchor babies and POTUS eligibility but SCOTUS is the final word on "interpreting" The Constitution.
Yeap, at Parkland Hospital it's so bad that Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price sent a bill to the Mexican consulate here in Dallas for the tab. Of course the noble Mexican government laughed at it. According to international law when a foreign national is in another country and they require hospital services their home nation is supposed to reimburse the hospital for the first 72 hours of care.
It's so bad in Dallas that Parkland is know as the "Hispanic Healthcare Hospital". :mad:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/061206dnmetmoms.d9b9669.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/091507dnbushispanichealth.29186bf.html
The original law concerning "anchor babies" was meant for babies of African slaves and Native Americans being born here in the US.
Come to think of it now that we are on the subject, I wonder POTUS ever got his citizenship since is actually from Kenya???
Barry's mom was a US Citizen ......... so he would be allotted citizenship by her.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html
The case as cited "Does not address illegal entry." ... Please review the case again ... there is no holdings by the court addressing illegal entry... I maintain .. "The status of a child follows the status of the mother." .this is a well established maxim of law. ... therefore, a child born from an illegal mother through illegal entry is illegal....
The case as cited "Does not address illegal entry." ... Please review the case again ... there is no holdings by the court addressing illegal entry... I maintain .. "The status of a child follows the status of the mother." .this is a well established maxim of law. ... therefore, a child born from an illegal mother through illegal entry is illegal....
That whole Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is lost on you, huh?
I didn't write the law or issue the Court's ruling. Want to put an end to anchorbabies? Either overturn Ark or repeal the Fourteenth Amendment; it'll take one, the other, or both. The law is well established, as are the precedents.
That whole Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is lost on you, huh?
I didn't write the law or issue the Court's ruling. Want to put an end to anchorbabies? Either overturn Ark or repeal the Fourteenth Amendment; it'll take one, the other, or both. The law is well established, as are the precedents.
I do understand what you are saying and I know it is not you who made the decision. No, the 14th amendment is not lost on me, however the 14th is not all encompassing, "And subject to the jurisdiction, ....." The amendment excluded children born to ambassadors, prelates, consuls... Indians.. etc.. . I understand what precedents have been set. I am saying they are based on an incorrect interpretation, one that was NOT always the case. It is obvious I am no scholar( yes I hear you saying ,"duh" from here;)) but think about all of the issues solved with this interpretation. I cant speak to your experiences with the court system but in some of the ones I have been involved in, occasionally Judges get it wrong, and let us not forget they have political leanings also.
I do understand what you are saying and I know it is not you who made the decision. No, the 14th amendment is not lost on me, however the 14th is not all encompassing, "And subject to the jurisdiction, ....." The amendment excluded children born to ambassadors, prelates, consuls... Indians.. etc.. . I understand what precedents have been set. I am saying they are based on an incorrect interpretation, one that was NOT always the case. It is obvious I am no scholar( yes I hear you saying ,"duh" from here;)) but think about all of the issues solved with this interpretation. I cant speak to your experiences with the court system but in some of the ones I have been involved in, occasionally Judges get it wrong, and let us not forget they have political leanings also.
Abraxas,
Understood. I can't agree more that sometimes the judges get it wrong. Quite a bit of my professional life is guided by rules set based on court decisions where (in my humble opinion) the judges got it wrong. The most recent being a thorn in my side is, Kyllo v. U.S., where anyone who understand the technology involved can see that not did SCOTUS not understand the technology, neither did the attorneys arguing for the government. Unfortunately, precedential rulings are binding and it take a law change or the case causing the precedent to be overturned to make the change in the way things are done. In the immediate issue, anchor babies and the combination of the legal principles jus soli and jus sanguinis it will take a change of the 14th or Ark to make it happen.
Ken
In the immediate issue, anchor babies and the combination of the legal principles jus soli and jus sanguinis it will take a change of the 14th or Ark to make it happen.
Ken
For what it is worth I know and agree with what you are saying. It just irritates me, because I see it as a waste of time given how I read it. But me dumb piss ant, what me know;)
"Interesting read. Out of curiosity, would the fact that the parents were here legally and in a kind of permanent resident status have anything to do with it? I am not being smart, I mean it in a genuine question. I am by no means a law expert."
US v. Ark is one of the longest SCOTUS rulings ever written, the detail in the ruling leaves no doubt about the SCOTUS opinion on the matter. Whether the parents are legally or illegally present is immaterial to the nationality of a child born in the United States. Like I said, this is long settled law, time to move on.
Here is the entire ruling for those that might actually read it.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
Laws are changed and revised all of the time. It's time that this law is revised. When it was reviewed and upheld we didn't have 15million plus illegals in the country with 70% of them using some type of Federal or State Aid. We also didn't have people from 3rd world countries pooling their money for a plane ticket to come "visit" the U.S. at about the same time their baby is due.......
We need to start looking at this country like a neighborhood and the world as a town or city. How many times have you seen the gov't bus in kids from bad neighborhoods so they can attend the "rich" school, then the local gov't buy's blocks of apartments and section 8s them, and then they build gov't housing on commercial lots. They can do this because the apartments are no loger at max capacity because people no longe want to live there and get their shit stolen or messed up. The public housing goes up becuase businesses no longer want to invest in the area so they get the land for cheap.
These people move into an area and **** it up because they don't respect it. They don't have any skin in the game, they don't pay property taxes or rent so who cares!!
On the other hand the hard working people in the town, who own their own homes and pay the city, state, and schol taxes, see their town go to shit. They lose value on their homes because of the shitbags who moved and screwed up the apartments and the public housing!
Now these homeowners move to a different side of town and they pull their kids out of the old school and move to another school. This, of course, takes years.....20-30yrs to happen, but eventually it will happen! Then the formerly affluent or nice area becomes run down, and eventually it's a POS just like the place that those people came from who were bussed in initially.
This is what is happening to this country!!! Don't you for one second think it's not!! But, guess what? There is no other "area" or new town to move to once this neighborhood is fukked up....that's it end of story! When historians look back at the demise of this :suicide2:country they will see it was from the inside out that it "rotted away". We need to close the borders and halt immigration. We need to do this to rebuild our country and to get our american citizens back to work! I think there should be a law and a database of all work and student visas to show what job and company they are emplyed in/at. If an american citizen is qualified for that position then they should get first right of refusal. If you are a citizen of this country and you are unemployed and there is a foreigner with a job that you could be doing and getting paid for!
Then that is just a travesty of justice!:cray:
They try to use the 14th to cover the idea that anyone on US soil is afforded all the rights of a US Citizen.
CarlosDJackal
12-05-11, 12:27
They try to use the 14th to cover the idea that anyone on US soil is afforded all the rights of a US Citizen.
Worst than that, they are still trying to accord the same rights to those in GITMO. When are these leftists going to understand that the whole world is not entitled to the rights and privileges that are accorded to US Nationals?
As an Immigrant (FWIW, I was naturalized in 1987) I knew that until I was given the status of "Resident Alien" (aka: "Green Card holder") I did not have the same rights as the members of my family who were already US Nationals. I also knew that as a Resident Alien I did not have the same privileges as those who were US Citizens.
It is not a very hard concept to grasp - at least to those who choose to follow the written law.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.