April 30, 2010

AZ Tweaks Immigration Law, Hysterical Critics Unlikely To Be Satisfied
— DrewM

They've tightened up some of the language about "lawful contact" and the role race can and cannot play.

One change to the bill strengthens restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.

Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."

Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

The law's sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, characterized the race and ethnicity changes as clarifications "just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty that's been played."

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said allowing immigration-status contacts for civil violations such as weed-infested yards or too many occupants in a residence could spur complaints of racial profiling.

Some critics will simply say it changes nothing in reality. Cops can still "invent" reasons to stop people they think are illegal aliens based on nothing more than skin color.

Might this happen? Sure. But every law is subject to this type of abuse. You deal with that when it comes in the form of an 'as applied' challenge.

It would be better for all of us is most (not all but most) of the critics of the law just admitted they aren't so much worried about civil rights but ensuring that no action is ever taken against illegal aliens in this country. If you are an open border/amnesty type, have the courage to say it.

Related enough: Congressman Duncan Hunter really needs to consider what he says because stuff like this is not helping anyone.

An audience member asked Hunter, "Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens?"

Hunter responded, "I would have to, yes."

The congressman continued, "It's a complex issue and ... you could look and say, 'You're a mean guy. That's a mean thing to do. That's not a humanitarian thing to do.' " Hunter added, "We simply cannot afford what we're doing right now. We just can't afford it. California's going under."

...At the Saturday gathering, Hunter said, "It takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen - it's what's in our souls."

Perhaps the Congressman can explain to me how exactly you deport American citizens from America. You may not be a fan of birthright citizenship but it's been the law of the land since 1868 and was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1898. Look, feel free to argue all you want against this interpretation but it's simply the law of the land and has been for quite sometime.

And what is this nonsense about American souls? I agree that being an American takes more than getting a passport but he's talking about kids who have lived their whole lives in this country.

The children of immigrants, legal or illegal, who are born and raised in this country are every bit American as any child of a family that's been here for generations. We don't visit the sins of the parents on the children in this country. If Hunter doesn't get that, than maybe he's a little unclear about what the soul of America is.

(Arizona story via Byron York)

Posted by: DrewM at 05:42 AM | Comments (262)
Post contains 616 words, total size 4 kb.

1 The children of immigrants, legal or illegal, who are born and raised in this country are every bit American as any child of a family that's been here for generations.

Not the new crop in California.  Instead of being taught the English language and American history, like my ancestors, they're taught Reconquista in Spanish. 

Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 30, 2010 05:46 AM (mR7mk)

2 Anchor babies aweigh!

Posted by: Duncan Hunter at April 30, 2010 05:46 AM (W5NBA)

3
The federal Government is not doing their job.  That's why AZ had to do something.

ooo looksie here:  Chuck Schumer (D-control freak)  wants to make sure the feds have all the power... the power to promise, and then to fall short and do nothing.

"states and municipalities will be prohibited from enacting their own rules and penalties relating to immigration, which could undermine federal policies."


Posted by: Lemon Kitten at April 30, 2010 05:47 AM (0fzsA)

4

We don't visit the sins of the parents on the children in this country.

If they are working class whites, then yes, we do.

Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at April 30, 2010 05:47 AM (dQdrY)

5 #3  Guess the 10th Amendment doesn't mean anything these days, eh?

Posted by: Kratos (reunited with the Blade of Olympus) at April 30, 2010 05:49 AM (9hSKh)

6 Of course, the feds artfully deflect attention to AZ, without acknowledging that if they enforced their own laws at the border, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But of course, what they really want are open borders without having to say they're sorry.

Posted by: R. Sherman at April 30, 2010 05:49 AM (rwcvo)

7

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house). According to the protesters: 1. You are REQUIRED to let me stay in your house 2. You are REQUIRED to add me to your family's insurance plan 3. You are REQUIRED to Educate my kids 4. You are REQUIRED to Provide other benefits to me & to my family

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house And what a deal it is for me!!! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior. Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you to learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me.

Sounds like a good deal to me ! I'm on-board ...

Free Burritos and Corona's for all !

 

 

Posted by: American Dawg at April 30, 2010 05:52 AM (B+L/R)

8 Yep, kids born here are American Citizens. We have to stop this invasion with a fence, punishment for American violators of the law, and tossing out adult illegals. The children who were born here may stay. Let the adult illegals deal with who stays and who goes. I wonder, can an illegal Alien parent who is about to be deported compel a minor child to leave with them?

Posted by: eman at April 30, 2010 05:52 AM (6tqEs)

9 Guess the 10th Amendment doesn't mean anything these days, eh?

I'm a big fan of the Tenth Amendment but it actually doesn't apply to this issue. Border security and naturalization are clearly powers granted to the federal government.

Now, there can be cases where states and the feds share jurisdiction but under the doctrine of preemption, if it's a federal power (which this is), the feds can shut the states out. They don't have to but they can. Shumer's idea, while wrong on policy grounds, seems to be within the federal governments legit powers.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 05:52 AM (9B5OK)

10 We used to call that shit, "law of the soil." Severable.

Having a little experience in the land of law enforcement, I will trust that my brothers and sisters will be able to make up the needed premise with which to contact and deport illegals. Legally.

Sweet. Fuck 'em.

Posted by: Lunatic Fringe at April 30, 2010 05:53 AM (uFdnM)

11 Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status. Aw, c'mon! Deport snitches and whiners! /

Posted by: flurmf at April 30, 2010 05:56 AM (JL8fn)

12 I'm a big fan of the Tenth Amendment but it actually doesn't apply to this issue. Border security and naturalization are clearly powers granted to the federal government.

Meh. The Feds abandonment of their responsibility in this area leaves it to the states to enforce. If the Canadian army streamed into Michigan and the Feds refused to respond, the Michigan NG and militia would have the authority to defend themselves.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at April 30, 2010 05:58 AM (ZJ/un)

13 Perhaps the Congressman can explain to me how exactly you deport American citizens from America. You may not be a fan of birthright citizenship but it's been the law of the land since 1868 and was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1898.Look, feel free to argue all you want against this interpretation but it's simply the law of the land and has been for quite sometime.

NOT TRUE

There has never been a ruling on this anchor baby crap. The cited case Won Kim Ark, was the child of LEGAL PERMANENT imigrants.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 05:58 AM (QrA9E)

14 You can't deport American citizens whose parents are illegal.

Yet at the same time, if you set up the rules such that the parents of illegals won't get deported, you've got a BAD problem, since now you're strongly incentivizing illegal aliens to have kids!

I don't know about Mexican citizenship laws, but I'd take it as a given that if both your parents are Mexican you'd be entitled to Mexican citizenship even if you were born outside the country.

In other words, if the parents of an American kid are illegal Mexican immingrants and there were deported back to Mexico, there would probably be no legal reason why they couldn't bring the kid back with them.  


Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2010 05:58 AM (6Q9g2)

15 The small fire that was illegal migration in the 1960's was not put out, in fact, it was fed; now we face a conflagration and people are whining about what we need to do to save our Republic.

Posted by: eman at April 30, 2010 05:58 AM (6tqEs)

16 I (was) a critic of the bill, and I'm satisfied with the change. I'm an immigrant from Canada (GO FLAMES!) and I've had to carry my Green Card (which is actually white) from Day One, because it's Federal Law. Big deal. I was kinda hoping I could stop carrying my papers with me when I became a citizen, though. Now that the standard is detention/arrest instead of any lawful contact, it limits the police's ability to ask for ID to just people who are breaking the law. I still think there are better ways to close the border and end the mess we have here in Arizona, but this law isn't big issue with me anymore.

Posted by: ExUrbanKevin at April 30, 2010 05:59 AM (toqoX)

17 The children of immigrants, legal or illegal, who are born and raised in this country are every bit American as any child of a family that's been here for generations.

If a cat has kittens in my oven, that doesn't make them biscuits.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 30, 2010 05:59 AM (aKUi6)

18 American Dawg@7

Excellent analogy.  Reminds me of the Melville short story about "Bartleby the Scrivener"- which is an excellent metaphor for the situation.

Posted by: Nighthawk at April 30, 2010 06:00 AM (OtQXp)

19 I don't know about applying Wong Kim Ark to this issue.  That case dealt with a child born of people who were legally in the United States.  That isn't the case with illegals sneaking into the country.

Posted by: JohnTant at April 30, 2010 06:00 AM (PFy0L)

20 10 We used to call that shit, "law of the soil." Severable.

Having a little experience in the land of law enforcement, I will trust that my brothers and sisters will be able to make up the needed premise with which to contact and deport illegals. Legally.

Sweet. Fuck 'em.

Posted by: Lunatic Fringe at April 30, 2010 10:53 AM (uFdnM)

Hear! Hear!

Posted by: conscious and still hoping for victory at April 30, 2010 06:00 AM (YVZlY)

21
This will all become a non-issue as soon as the gov figures out how to tax the shit out of illegals to the point they would rather stay in their own piece of shit country. Won't be long at the rate Obama and Congress are fucking up the USSA.

Posted by: Eeyore at April 30, 2010 06:01 AM (rYIUA)

22 I'm firmly against breaking up family units.  I guess that means sending the kids back with the parents.

Posted by: JohnTant at April 30, 2010 06:01 AM (PFy0L)

23 15, What if the kid wants to stay? What if some judge rules that deportation may not separate minor children from parents?

Posted by: eman at April 30, 2010 06:02 AM (6tqEs)

24 #15 correcting my typos:

In other words, if the parents of an American kid are illegal Mexican immigrants, and they were deported back to Mexico, there would probably be no legal reason why they couldn't bring the kid back with them.

Amplifying, if they wanted to leave their kid in the USA to be taken care of by relatives or by the State, well, they could do that, if they chose to do it.   If they wanted to keep the family together, I don't see why they couldn't.


Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2010 06:02 AM (6Q9g2)

25 What if the kid wants to stay?

Can we see their birth certificates?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 30, 2010 06:03 AM (aKUi6)

26 Hysterical Critics?  Surely you must bow to the knowledge of noted immigration expert Shakira (seen on JWF).

Latina pop star Shakira condem ! important; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: 400; font-size: 14.4px; position: relative;">ned Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigration, saying it promotes discrimination and robs Latinos of human dignity.

Visiting Phoenix City Hall on Thursday, the Colombian-born entertainer told more than 100 members of the media: "I'm in opposition to this law because it is a violation of human and civil rights. It goes against all human dignity, against the principles of most Americans I know..."I'm not an expert on the Constitution but I know the constitution exists for a reason," she said. "It exists to protect human beings, to protect the rights of people living in a nation, with or without documents. We're talking about human beings here."

Her hips don't lie - she's an idiot on this. 



Posted by: Kratos (reunited with the Blade of Olympus) at April 30, 2010 06:04 AM (9hSKh)

27 I can see some MSM clown saying "I thought you Conservatives wanted to keep families together. Where are your family values now?"

Posted by: eman at April 30, 2010 06:05 AM (6tqEs)

28

"National furor" kind of leads me to believe and people are universally against this.

Ehhhh.  Not really my impression actually, I mean since I kinda like it.

http://tinyurl.com/35tk39r


 

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at April 30, 2010 06:05 AM (RkRxq)

29 I find it increasingly difficult to give a shit about people of color these days.

Posted by: Barbarian at April 30, 2010 06:05 AM (EL+OC)

30 There is nothing in the Wong Kim Ark decision that gives citizenship to children of illegal aliens. His parents were subjects of the emperor of China, but domiciled in the US and engaged in business in the US. Although it is not mentioned either way, it seems that his parents were legal resident aliens at the time of his birth. A distinction could be made for those criminal illegal aliens essentially trespassing on US soil.

Posted by: tommylotto at April 30, 2010 06:06 AM (Wkp3W)

31 I love the idea of deporting illegal parents back to Mexico and leaving legally born children here. That is an interesting dilemma. Who will take care of the very young minors? Will Mexico allow their re-entry?

I absolutely love the idea of sending the Mexican government a little of the love they show us. It's fucking karma.

Posted by: Lunatic Fringe at April 30, 2010 06:06 AM (uFdnM)

32 "National furor"

That's "National Fuhrer", thank you very much.

Posted by: Major General Clusterfuck at April 30, 2010 06:06 AM (aKUi6)

33 There has never been a ruling on this anchor baby crap. The cited case Won Kim Ark, was the child of LEGAL PERMANENT imigrants.
Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 10:58 AM (QrA9E)

That's idiotic. The case did not turn on the status of the parents. It was based on the location of the birth of the child.

You're next argument will be 'Wong was only about parents from China. It said nothing about Mexicans".


Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 06:06 AM (9B5OK)

34

Not the new crop in California.  Instead of being taught the English language and American history, like my ancestors, they're taught Reconquista in Spanish. 

That is the Treason Lobby's plan. Sigh. Did we really defeat the Soviets abroad, only to have this 5th column at home?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 30, 2010 06:07 AM (tH7KR)

35I wonder, can an illegal Alien parent who is about to be deported compel a minor child to leave with them?

Absolutely they can.

People move from country to country all the time and take their kids with them.   The kid doesn't get to say "I don't want to go" then stay put!

I would feel bad for any kid that this happened to, but the fault doesn't lie with the gov't for deporting the parents, but rather with the parents for having then raising a kid as an illegal alien.

Again, should the system be set up so that merely having a child provides absolute protection against deportation?  Of course not, that's insane policy.   There is no country on the planet that lets you fly in, have a kid, then get the equivalent of permanent residency status just because you've done that!



Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2010 06:07 AM (6Q9g2)

36

HeHe!! O/T... just read some of Sum Goo's musings from yesterdays Government thread. Hilarious...maybe if he didn't begin all of his arguments with:   "This post is the dumbest fucking post I've read on Ace Of Spades in a long time"  he would be takin a bit more seriously.

 

Posted by: dananjcon at April 30, 2010 06:07 AM (pr+up)

37 It's time for  the law to be changed regarding being a citizen just because you were born here.If your parents enter illegally  into this Country you should not be considered an American. Harsh, I know but I have relatives in San Diego who work in a major hospital and it is full of illegal women who manage to crawl over the border just to give birth.They pay nothing and unbelievably they are not sent back over the border.Can't ask them anything,...It is against their civil rights.Meanwhile my daughter-in-law gives birth and the bills for her are outrageous. Somethings got to be done.

Posted by: Donna at April 30, 2010 06:08 AM (z3whe)

38 I find it increasingly difficult to give a shit about people of color these days.

Posted by: Barbarian at April 30, 2010 11:05 AM (EL+OC)

I predicted this when EasyBake got elected.  The "all in" on the race card is going to set race relations back a century.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 30, 2010 06:08 AM (aKUi6)

39

Fuck these goddamned illegal bastards and their fucking anchor babies!

Send all them to hell or Mexico, I don't care which, just get these bastards the hell out of here!

Posted by: Olivia Fig Newton at April 30, 2010 06:09 AM (s3LK6)

40
Lets just let everybody in to our nation without any immigration policy, and get them hooked up on welfare. 



That should make Shakira happy, right?

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at April 30, 2010 06:09 AM (0fzsA)

41 Has John McCain weighed in on this yet. His bio on Dickapedia only says he once supported dead Ted's common sense bill.

Posted by: Eeyore at April 30, 2010 06:10 AM (rYIUA)

42 As I told my daughter when she started to whine to be about this shit. The parents made the choice to come here, bad choice. If anchor baby  wants to live here they can come back as adults. In the meantime I hope that the anchor baby rule is nuked. Did you know there is actual tourism for anchor babies?

Posted by: Mrs. Compton at April 30, 2010 06:11 AM (NaJ/S)

43

Were I working for the congressman, the talking points I'd have written for him would read:

Of course we wouldn't deport the citizen child.  A citizen can't be deported. But it wouldn't keep the illegal immigrant adults from being deported.  His parents could leave him here with any legal resident relatives or friends.  Or his parents could take him with them to their home country.

Posted by: Simon Oliver Lockwood at April 30, 2010 06:11 AM (VE5vJ)

44 Anchor babies are the illegal immigration equivalent of human shields in war.

The best way to discourage the use of human shields in war is to shoot or bomb the enemy anyway. 

The best way to discourage anchor babies is to punish their parents anyway.  We can't really deport them anymore, but we can fine the living shit out of them.  When the price of an anchor baby is $250,000, it is unlikely that negligibly educated people who can't speak English will find that cash lying around anytime soon.

The key to ending illegal immigration is to end the incentives for it. 

Pass laws so that proof of citizenship is required for the following:

<ul>
<li>Rent an apartment
<li>Buy a home
<li>Buy a car
<li>Obtain employment (this one is already there, just not enforced)
<li>Open a bank account
<li>Cash a check
<li>Obtain public assistance
<li>Any other transaction necessary to function in society
</ul>

If these things were done, we wouldn't need a big bad fence.  Neither would we need to deport anyone, they would leave on their own.


Posted by: Lee at April 30, 2010 06:12 AM (zF8wD)

45 Easy. The "natural born" part has never been defined  - the thing (through congress or legal precedence) is to simply define "natural born" as anyone born to a LEGAL RESIDENT, and you're golden.

I actually support Duncan Hunter's position, but I'm mean.

Posted by: Ella at April 30, 2010 06:12 AM (LXov7)

46 Fucking Shakira bitch! I'd dip just her head in a bucket of acid till the skin falls off then skull fuck that commie whore. It would be even better if she could somehow stay alive during the process.

Posted by: Olivia Fig Newton at April 30, 2010 06:12 AM (s3LK6)

47 God Bless Arizona, the "Fuck This Shit State":

The new bill would make it illegal for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

http://tinyurl.com/2vcmheu

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 30, 2010 06:12 AM (aKUi6)

48

If a baby is born here in the U.S. of legal immigrants, sure- they're a citizen and get to stay. However, being born of illegal  immigrants, they should  become citizens of their parents home land - by default.

No problem with them visiting on occasion,though.

Posted by: Your Wise Uncle Rick at April 30, 2010 06:13 AM (CIK9E)

49 Of course we wouldn't deport the citizen child.  A citizen can't be deported. But it wouldn't keep the illegal immigrant adults from being deported.  His parents could leave him here with any legal resident relatives or friends.  Or his parents could take him with them to their home country.

Agree completely. Let Mexico figure out what the fuck to do about it. Problem resolved.

Posted by: Lunatic Fringe at April 30, 2010 06:14 AM (uFdnM)

50 29 I find it increasingly difficult to give a shit about people of color these days. Posted by: Barbarian at April 30, 2010 11:05 AM (EL+OC) FTFY.

Posted by: brian at April 30, 2010 06:14 AM (y05cf)

51 Anyone see a bottle of pills around here?  I think I forgot to take them this morning.

Posted by: Olivia Fig Newton at April 30, 2010 06:15 AM (VmtE9)

52 This Administration seems to willing to abandon the longstanding American policy of birth determines citizenship in the Middle East. George Mitchell tossed the Arabs a concession on the citizenship of "Palestinians" born in Syria, Lebanon, etc. http://tinyurl.com/ycz5ecx

Posted by: Jean at April 30, 2010 06:16 AM (h0rZ/)

53 O/T:   this is too cool...

you tube

via matt drudge...

Posted by: curious at April 30, 2010 06:17 AM (p302b)

54 #47  Hooray for AZ!  Eat your hearts out, La Raza.

Hope this trend spreads.

Posted by: Kratos (reunited with the Blade of Olympus) at April 30, 2010 06:17 AM (9hSKh)

55 That's idiotic. The case did not turn on the status of the parents. It was based on the location of the birth of the child.

No, the case did not mention the status of the parents other than they were immigrants. It did not specifically rule on illegals in the country.

The key to birth in this country is the phrase "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"

Illegals are not subject to the juristiction thereof other than the juristiction of the law which says they should be expelled.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 06:17 AM (QrA9E)

56 #31

I don't think its fair to call these individual "illegal parents". . .its not illegal to have children! (At least not in the USA).

Likewise, its not appropriate to call the children "legal" as all children are legal.  Its also not the kids fault their parents are illegal aliens.

You can debate whether or not the "born here, automatically a citizen" policy makes sense.  Some countries do it that way, many do not.  Its quite possible for us to change thist policy via the legislative process if we like, and personally I *might* support such a change, depending on the exact details.   But the fact is, that's the law of the land, and has been for some time.

I don't think it makes good policy to separate parents from their kids, even if the parents are illegal aliens.  What happens to the kids?  They either become wards of the state, go into private foster care, or are adopted.   I don't think any of those three outcomes is going to be better for the kid, let alone for society.

Again, if the kids parents are both Mexican citizens, the kid should automatically get Mexican citizenship.   If only one parent is an illegal alien (or only one gets deported), the kid can stay with the parent who stays behind.

I don't know if Mexico recognizes dual citizenship, but the USA, in practice now does.  So a USA-born kid who goes to Mexico to be with his deported, previously illegal Mexican parents and who even becomes a Mexican citizen, may well be able to return to the USA anytime he/she likes and stay indefinitely thereafter as a full US citizen.


Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2010 06:17 AM (PwGfd)

57 One fix for this anchor baby, birth tourism problem is to immediately make any child born here of a non-citizen a ward of the state until the child's parents produced the equivalent of a "certification of overseas birth" from of their home embassies. If the certification isn't produced; then the child goes on to foster care and eventual adoption by US citizens. Biological, non-citizen parents go home.

Posted by: Jean at April 30, 2010 06:19 AM (tTdaQ)

58 Perhaps the Congressman can explain to me how exactly you deport American citizens from America.

Speaking of hysterical, don't get your panties in a bunch, Drew.  What would you have us do with minor children of illegals?  Shouldn't they be with their parents?  And that anchor baby crap is a bunch of crap.  Talk about incentives for bad behavior.

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 06:21 AM (1fanL)

59 One fix for this anchor baby, birth tourism problem is to immediately make any child born here of a non-citizen a ward of the state

Barack Obama is a ward of the state.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 30, 2010 06:21 AM (aKUi6)

60 But the fact is, that's the law of the land, and has been for some time.

No  it is NOT. It is a damn interpretation by immigration officials. i.e. bureaucrats.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 06:21 AM (QrA9E)

61 Perhaps the Congressman can explain to me how exactly you deport American citizens from America.

Catapult. 
Trebouchet.
Very large longbow.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 30, 2010 06:22 AM (aKUi6)

62

If there was ever a case to ship off the anchor babies, now is the time to do it.

Public frustration of services provided to legal citizens is at all time high--let alone the outrage over illegal spawn .

People will portray advocates of common sense immigration reform of being racist anyway. Why not put forth the argument that we're not a national day care service provider?

Makes sense to me.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at April 30, 2010 06:22 AM (pLTLS)

63

#51

Yep, I guess I could tone it down a bit. But the idea that people from another country can break our laws and then have the balls to actually have "protests"  against us and our laws while standing on American soil,  really pisses me off.

Posted by: Olivia Fig Newton at April 30, 2010 06:23 AM (s3LK6)

64 Catapult. 
Trebouchet.
Very large longbow.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 30, 2010 11:22 AM (aKUi6)

cutjibnewsletter.

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 06:23 AM (1fanL)

65 We can't trust government to make routine traffic stops, but we can trust 'em to spend our money wisely, cap our carbon use, make the right choices about life or death for old people, or to put the proper gay activists in charge of our children's education.

Posted by: FatBaldnSassy at April 30, 2010 06:24 AM (lFp7s)

66 We can't trust government to make routine traffic stops, but we can trust 'em to spend our money wisely, cap our carbon use, make the right choices about life or death for old people, or to put the proper gay activists in charge of our children's education.

Posted by: FatBaldnSassy at April 30, 2010 11:24 AM (lFp7s)

Ouch.

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 06:25 AM (1fanL)

67 For me, the issue is one of logistics.

Seal the border FIRST.. Then, and only then, decide what to do with the Illegal Aliens.

It makes no sense, to set pathways to citizenship, if we leave the door open, inviting a continuation of the problem.

That's why I grit my teeth, whenever I hear "Comprehensive" reform... It's a cop-out.

Posted by: franksalterego at April 30, 2010 06:25 AM (+6fgE)

68 I don't think its fair to call these individual "illegal parents". . .its not illegal to have children! (At least not in the USA).

Oh geezus. Leave it to some technorati to split hairs. You are so very right. I will spell it out more precisely...

The sons and daughters of illegal alien parents residing in the U.S. at the time of their birth. Does that cover it?

Posted by: Lunatic Fringe at April 30, 2010 06:26 AM (uFdnM)

69

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 11:17 AM (QrA9E)

I get that's your interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It's simply not one shared by the Supreme Court of the United States. 

FTR- I don't agree with the idea of birth-right citizenship as a matter of policy or correct interpretation of the Constitution. That doesn't however change the reality of the world we live in.

Change the Constitution or change the Court but don't pretend that right now and for a long time birth right citizenship is the law of the land.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 06:27 AM (9B5OK)

70 As a comparison, do European countries have anchor baby citizens?

Posted by: conscious and still hoping for victory at April 30, 2010 06:27 AM (YVZlY)

71 It would be better for all of us is most (not all but most) of the critics of the law just admitted they aren't so much worried about civil rights but ensuring that no action is ever taken against illegal aliens in this country. If you are an open border/amnesty type, have the courage to say it.

I would argue that the pro law enforcement side of the debate should be even more direct.

There are two primary motivations for  the anti law enforcement side. Unscrupulous politicians want the votes and donations of illegals, and upper class liberals don't want to pay American salaries if they can pay half as much to illegals.

Refuse to engage on any points other then these and you will really hammer the anti law enforcement side...

Posted by: 18-1 at April 30, 2010 06:27 AM (7BU4a)

72 Obama speaks on GDP numbers.. live now!

Posted by: Mjim at April 30, 2010 06:28 AM (V8B//)

73 As a comparison, do European countries have anchor baby citizens?

Posted by: conscious and still hoping for victory at April 30, 2010 11:27 AM (YVZlY)

Of course the hell not.  I'm guessing nobody but us suckers has that wunnerful provision.

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 06:28 AM (1fanL)

74 Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 11:27 AM (9B5OK)

I do not agree with your reading of Wong Kim Ark. We can leave it at that.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 06:29 AM (QrA9E)

75

"Another change replaces the phrase 'lawful contact' with 'lawful stop, detention or arrest.'" 

This is a proper and very important change.  "Lawful contact" was, in my judgment, too loose a standard.

Posted by: ScurvyOaks at April 30, 2010 06:29 AM (s7sYI)

76 61 Perhaps the Congressman can explain to me how exactly you deport American citizens from America.

Catapult. 
Trebouchet.
Very large longbow.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 30, 2010 11:22 AM (aKUi6)


Once again the US Navy has the answer:  http://tinyurl.com/277dhms

Posted by: Nighthawk at April 30, 2010 06:30 AM (OtQXp)

77 Reasonably good summary here, but it seems to me that there should be absolutely no legal obstacle for any kid born in the USA to Mexican nationals to become a Mexican national themself.

(Note that Mexico makes a distinction between nationals and citizens, with all citizens being nationals, but not vice-versa).

While it may not be legal for the State to COMPEL a minor to move to Mexico with their deported parent(s), there seems to me to be no reason why the parents couldn't take the kid with them if they liked.






Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2010 06:30 AM (PwGfd)

78 Surely a simpler explanation is that Duncan Hunter misspoke?

(a) He favors deporting from natural born citizens
(b) He meant revoking natural born citizenship in future.

I go with (b), but supported him in 08 and think he is far from being a nut case that thinks there is a chance to change that law retroactively

Posted by: nine coconuts at April 30, 2010 06:30 AM (DHNp4)

79

Why do we not blame the right people?  Those people who came here illegally  and know they are breaking the law.  They are the ones who chose to have children here and knew they were putting them at risk.  If a mother who is a legal citizen is a crack addict or prostitute or thief or fails to give them proper care, she can have her children taken from her because she is putting them at risk.  What is the difference between her and an illegal who is breaking the law?  I'm not suggesting we take these children, but I am tired of people using them as shields, tools to break the law.

Posted by: Deanna at April 30, 2010 06:31 AM (oflVV)

80

This is a proper and very important change.  "Lawful contact" was, in my judgment, too loose a standard.

Posted by: ScurvyOaks at April 30, 2010 11:29 AM (s7sYI)

Why?  You need lawful contact and reasonable suspicion.  Kinda like what you need with a fucking citizen to investigate suspicion of criminal behavior.

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 06:31 AM (1fanL)

81 I simply can't watch this douche bag run his mouth anymore. I clicked the link Mjim, made 5 secs., and backed out. I did better with M's hippie vid.

Posted by: Lunatic Fringe at April 30, 2010 06:31 AM (uFdnM)

82 Why do the left hate the police?

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at April 30, 2010 06:33 AM (7VvJB)

83 And Hunter wasn't saying revoke their citizenship and deport them.  He said nothing about their citizenship.  They've got that for life, thanks to us suckers.  But if the criminal parents are being deported, what to do with their child?  Ward of the state?  That'd be just perfect.  If that's the only alternative, send the kid with its parents.

Heartless, I know.

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 06:33 AM (1fanL)

84 Any talk of separating parents from their children should be a nonstarter. Not only does it sound awful but it's a good way to instantly alienate women, even ones sympathetic with better illegal immigration enforcement. If we must stop the anchor baby tactic, specifically forbid it in law and then deport whole families.

Posted by: joncelli at April 30, 2010 06:35 AM (RD7QR)

85 Perhaps the Congressman can explain to me how exactly you deport American citizens from America.

Isn't this the equivalent of the "rape and incest" part of the abortion debate?

It is a minor incidence overall, though it gives abortion and illegal immigration supporters something to fall back on since their primary positions are so far out of whack with the American population.

Why the hell are we engaging on it? Set the terms of the debates and stick to them.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 30, 2010 06:35 AM (7BU4a)

86 I do not agree with your reading of Wong Kim Ark. We can leave it at that.
Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 11:29 AM (QrA9E)

Dude, it's not my reading. It's the reading that the government of the United States of America has operated for over 100 years.

You can try to trivialize it as my reading but you are ignoring the reality of the world. If it comforts you to frame it as a difference of opinion between two people on the internet fine but there are tens of millions of people over the course of more than a century who trace their citizenship status back to that decision.

It's bigger than me and you and our opinions.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 06:36 AM (9B5OK)

87 Why the hell are we engaging on it? Set the terms of the debates and stick to them.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 30, 2010 11:35 AM (7BU4a)

It was RewDay who got all weepy and indignant over it.

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 06:37 AM (1fanL)

88 Actual text of the finding of Wong from the syllabus:

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 06:37 AM (QrA9E)

89 84 Any talk of separating parents from their children should be a nonstarter. Not only does it sound awful but it's a good way to instantly alienate women, even ones sympathetic with better illegal immigration enforcement. If we must stop the anchor baby tactic, specifically forbid it in law and then deport whole families.

Posted by: joncelli at April 30, 2010 11:35 AM (RD7QR)

I think that was the intent of the questioner all along.  Hunter allowed himself to be baited into yet another "Macaca Moment" for the GOP.  He should have known, and spoken, better.

Posted by: Nighthawk at April 30, 2010 06:37 AM (OtQXp)

90

Heartless, I know.

I *dig* anyone that talks common sense heartless in this particular situation.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at April 30, 2010 06:37 AM (pLTLS)

91 Dude, it's not my reading. It's the reading that the government of the United States of America has operated for over 100 years.

I would say that this anchor baby shit is a new phenomena and has not been the policy of the U.S. for over 100 years.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 06:38 AM (QrA9E)

92 has anyone seen the video of that news anchor decribing Soy Milk as Soy Jizzum on air?

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2010 06:38 AM (wuv1c)

93 The question asked was an intentional Dem trap to get us all basing the argument on the children.

The question should have been Would you support deportation of the illegal alien parents of a natural-born American citizen.?

Then we could have a discussion on the real issue at hand.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at April 30, 2010 06:39 AM (tf9Ne)

94 I can see some MSM clown saying "I thought you Conservatives wanted to keep families together. Where are your family values now?"

That's a dumb question.  Sending the kids back to their country of origin with their parent keeps the family together.  Some already choose this instead of leaving the kid with neighbors or foster care.

Young adults are already showing up at the border claiming to be born in the US to parents who took them back to their home country as children.   They're U.S. citizens, but they've been raised somewhere else their childhood--they're not culturally Americans"just like kids born to families who have been here for generations." (see also Obama, Barack).  They're automagically entitled to welfare services even though their parents never paid in a dime, and they get to vote, even though they have had no education in American civics (unlike legal naturalized immigrants).  This is a huge problem.

(Here's a story I posted the other day about a Polish woman who intentionally "vacationed" in Florida around her due date.  Later her husband used a fake Swedish passport to illegally cross from Mexico. )

Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 30, 2010 06:39 AM (mR7mk)

95

I *dig* anyone that talks common sense heartless in this particular situation.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at April 30, 2010 11:37 AM (pLTLS)

Exterminate the lot of 'em!  By drawing and quartering!  And burn their remains, and throw 'em in the landfill!

How you doin'?

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 06:39 AM (1fanL)

96

I have a question for anyone who knows.

what is the anchor baby policy in all other western nations?

if a women drops out a baby in france is it french?

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2010 06:40 AM (wuv1c)

97 Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 11:33 AM (1fanL)

Read what he said or watch the video.

He didn't say illegal immigrant parents couldn't take their kids with them. He said he supported 'deporting' American citizens. Deporting is a term of art, it's a legal process.

What do you think an immigration judge would do if the government brought before him a case which involved deporting a citizen? He'd either laugh or dress the government down since it's a legal impossibility.


Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 06:41 AM (9B5OK)

98 american souls?  pick-self-up-by-bootstraps, individualist, freedom-loving, entrepreneurial, family-centered, intrepid, etc.... is that what he means?  if that is the case, then some of these illegals are more "american" in that sense than alot of citizens.  that's the whole idea of fresh blood revitalizing liberty.  its a major pro-immigration point.  I dont think hunter has figured out a cohesive and consistent position.

Posted by: A.G. at April 30, 2010 06:41 AM (BgD0W)

99 As a comparison, do European countries have anchor baby citizens?

France lets parents request citizenship for the child at age 13, if they haven't gone home by then.

So much for "Be more like France!"

Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 30, 2010 06:42 AM (mR7mk)

100

You wingers make me sick!!11!! This is ouright racism going on here!

Friggin troglodites!

 

Posted by: Jenine Carrappyho at April 30, 2010 06:42 AM (pr+up)

101 I agree with Duncan Hunter, and if the law needs to be changed change it. It used to be the children of immigrants were born here and raised in a setting where they absorbed the culture of America as they grew. They were American. That's why their parents came here. To live in a better world. Now these Mexicans are coming here to have anchor babies. They live in segregated communities with their own language, their own laws and their culture. Some children become American, but most just become more aliens. I fully believe Mexicans are no longer coming here to find a better future. They are being taught south of the border that the American southwest is their land, their heritage and it's time to take it back. Children born here are simply tools to plant a flag claiming our land as theirs. Until we secure our borders this will continue until the southwest is a Mexican Narco-Terrorist state. No more anchor babies. And yes, America has every right to determine its immigration policies and change them as the times demand.

Posted by: ChicagoJedi at April 30, 2010 06:42 AM (WZFkG)

102 82 Why do the left hate the police?

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at April 30, 2010 11:33 AM (7VvJB)

They transfer the hate for their parents to an authority figure.

Posted by: Ludicrous Speed at April 30, 2010 06:42 AM (zqzYV)

103

Something in this strikes me (ouch!)...

When a husband and wife commit a crime and are sentenced to jail, their sentence does not get commuted because they have children.  No one says "oh, we don't want to break up this family so it's OK that these parents went on a 12 state murder spree." (I exaggerate for emphasis).

Seems to me that if two people enter this country illegally and have a kid, the consequences of that action must be borne upon those two people and not the country at large.

Posted by: JohnTant at April 30, 2010 06:43 AM (PFy0L)

104 Changing the birth citizenship law isn't going to happen quickly, however obsolete it is. Giving the biological parents an opportunity to obtain a "certification of overseas birth" prior to the expiration of their visas or deportation, and retain custody of the child is the humane thing to do.

Posted by: Jean at April 30, 2010 06:43 AM (7K04W)

105 It's times like these that we need to ask ourselves, WWHD.

(What Would Hitler Do)

Am I right or am I right?

Posted by: Uniball at April 30, 2010 06:43 AM (27iEn)

106
Are them kitteh biscuits ready to pop out of the oven yet? I'm hongre!

Posted by: Atomic Roach at April 30, 2010 06:44 AM (Oxen1)

107 When a husband and wife commit a crime and are sentenced to jail, their sentence does not get commuted because they have children.

Good point.  Single mothers don't get to defer their prison sentences, either, even if they're non-white.  You smother your newborn, and your toddler goes with a relative or into foster care for the six months you're in the halfway house.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 30, 2010 06:45 AM (mR7mk)

108 He said he supported 'deporting' American citizens.

He didn't actually say it. He allowed the questioner" to put the words in his mouth,

His response was "I would have to...".  I thought it was pretty plain that he meant that he would deport the parents and the kids would have to go with them.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 06:45 AM (QrA9E)

109 I remember reading on a blog that they changed the immigration laws recently.  during the Bush administration. 

It's so funny, every other country in the word is allowed to have and enforce immigration laws but somehow everyone expects the US not to have these laws and not to enforce them?

In some countries you can come in but are not allowed to work unless one of their citizens can't do the job.   This discourages people from coming unless they are sponsored by a company.

Anyway, I really think they have tweaked the law to the point where you are not automatically an American citizen if you are born to an American somewhere else...I think you now have to apply for citizenship for that child.  That was not the case before.

The libs, instead of understanding that the rancher being killed was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back in Arizona....are using this to their advantage like always.   they talk about being nice and caring and warm and fuzzy and then they do the exact opposite.

The borders need to be closed and the laws need to be enforced.  period....even if it isn't politically correct.  Once they do that they can go ahead and deal with the problems like children born here whose parents are here illegally.  We are not a mean spirited people so we will find a way to deal with that but first we need to close the border to everyone and maybe have a moratorium on immigration from anywhere until we figure out how to fix the system that is broken.

Posted by: curious at April 30, 2010 06:45 AM (p302b)

110 Perhaps the Congressman can explain to me how exactly you deport American citizens from America. You may not be a fan of birthright citizenship but it's been the law of the land since 1868 and was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1898. Look, feel free to argue all you want against this interpretation but it's simply the law of the land and has been for quite sometime.

Perhaps I can help you out with this. You see, if you want to change a Supreme Court decision, the most direct route is to amend the constitution. And guess what? Congressmen have a role in that process.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at April 30, 2010 06:46 AM (xQLpe)

111 95  I just said heartless, I didn't say batshit criminally insane

Posted by: laceyunderalls at April 30, 2010 06:46 AM (pLTLS)

112 What do you think an immigration judge would do if the government brought before him a case which involved deporting a citizen? He'd either laugh or dress the government down since it's a legal impossibility.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 11:41 AM (9B5OK)

What's your solution?

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 06:46 AM (1fanL)

113 Personal responsibility is anti-American!  Why, it's practically Hitlerian!

Posted by: Harry Reid at April 30, 2010 06:47 AM (VmtE9)

114 82 Why do the left hate the police? Excellent question. Let me take a 25 year, libtard city law enforcement career stab at this.

The left, and I am speaking generally, hate authority. They want abortions, they want legal drugs (witness Ca.), social programs ad nauseum, and they grew up hating government and authority. They hate the idea of God. Gaia is their God. And they scoot around with Coexist stickers on Priuses...deluded into thinking that they alone have the right idea and the intellectual high ground. They reek of arrogance. Law enforcement represents the only real authority they have to worry about. The worst of the left, scowl at law enforcement believing themselves to be far more emotionally and intellectually advanced than us jack booted thugs. They see us on a par with the military, uanble to do anything meaningful with our lives.

They are so unconscious, that often I would dream of the day when all of my brothers and sisters, those with badges, quit. Thus turning them over to the vagaries of inner city youths, criminals, sociopaths. And listen to them howl for help. And in that dream, I simply said, sorry-fresh out MF'ers.



Posted by: Lunatic Fringe at April 30, 2010 06:48 AM (uFdnM)

115 What do you think an immigration judge would do if the government brought before him a case which involved deporting a citizen? He'd either laugh or dress the government down since it's a legal impossibility.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 11:41 AM (9B5OK)

And maybe he supports changing the law and/or the Constitution.  I'd be willing to be he doesn't advocate breaking the law.

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 06:48 AM (1fanL)

116 So no bonuses or incentives for the collection of teeth and ears as trophies?

Posted by: Fritz at April 30, 2010 06:48 AM (GwPRU)

117 The left, and I am speaking generally, hate authority.

They hate authority only when they're not the authority.  They have no problems forcing the rest of us to life as they see fit (or else!).

Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 30, 2010 06:49 AM (mR7mk)

118 I don't get the argument here, the law does not say anything about the child, that is the parents choice.  Its the parents choice whether to take the child with them, its the parents choice whether to "break up the family".

Some might argue the law forces the choice, but I go back to the original sin, the illegal immigration.  Don't use your law breaking to play on our sympathies, the parents caused the problem.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at April 30, 2010 06:51 AM (7VvJB)

119 When this law goes to the Supremes to be decided, I bet we know how the wise Latina will decide, eh?

Posted by: Who Knows at April 30, 2010 06:51 AM (7FgWm)

120 He didn't actually say it. He allowed the questioner" to put the words in his mouth,
His response was "I would have to...".  I thought it was pretty plain that he meant that he would deport the parents and the kids would have to go with them.
Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 11:45 AM (QrA9E)

You have an amazing ability to change reality to fit your own view.

Actually his answer was "I would have to yes".

How is that not 'actually saying it'?

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 06:51 AM (9B5OK)

121 @17: "If a cat has kittens in my oven, that doesn't make them biscuits." Even if your biscuits are usually made of ground kitty bones? As for Duncan Hunter, didn't that idjit try to become President several years back? Guess he gave up on that idea.

Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at April 30, 2010 06:51 AM (g9neE)

122 Posted by: Guy Fawkes at April 30, 2010 11:51 AM (7VvJB)

The problem is, when logic goes against emotion, emotion wins with a large portion of the population.

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 06:52 AM (1fanL)

123

Cops can still "invent" reasons to stop people

pssssst, shut up ace, its a little known secret

although of course i never did that IYKWIMAITYD

Posted by: policiademarinajose at April 30, 2010 06:52 AM (gg4j2)

124 I will totally agree with one thing. The load mouth assholes out there in the streets screaming are not going to be satisfied with any law that doesn't allow:

1. Totally open borders
2. Instant citizenship for all of their own
3. Instant government benefits for all.

After all, "its their right".

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 06:52 AM (QrA9E)

125 If a cat has kittens in my oven, that doesn't make them biscuits.

Good one but...

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.

Why give the Left more "Mean Republican" ammo on a small part of an issue.  Close the border 1st! 

 

ps: Valu-Rite may lead to random Chef disasters.

Posted by: Dave at April 30, 2010 06:53 AM (fXLML)

126 What's your solution?

Parents can take their kids or leave them here with legal residents. If they become wards of the state,so be it.

That's the legal answer.

The political one is much harder because breaking up families is not going to win a lot of points. Not saying that's not a reason to do it but it's the reality.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 06:53 AM (9B5OK)

127

120  I bet we know how the wise Latina will decide, eh?

not at all, she's puerto rican and they hate mexicans, i say its a 50/50

Posted by: policiademarinajose at April 30, 2010 06:54 AM (gg4j2)

128 Actually his answer was "I would have to yes".

That is not saying outright "Deport American citizens"

Look at it closely, the text is different.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 06:54 AM (QrA9E)

129 Posted by: Guy Fawkes at April 30, 2010 11:51 AM (7VvJB)

The problem is, when logic goes against emotion, emotion wins with a large portion of the population.

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 11:52 AM (1fanL)

See, for example, even someone like DrewM.  Who is unwilling to give a good guy, Duncan Hunter, the benefit of the doubt on interpretation of what he said.  Hunter doesn't want to change the law to reduce the incentive to come here illegally and spit out your brat, Hunter isn't trying to fix the problem.  No, Hunter is a lawless, heartless rogue.

If DrewM. is going to get hysterical, what chance do we have with the general population?

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 06:55 AM (1fanL)

130

american souls?  pick-self-up-by-bootstraps, individualist, freedom-loving, entrepreneurial, family-centered, intrepid, etc.... is that what he means?  if that is the case, then some of these illegals are more "american" in that sense than alot of citizens.  that's the whole idea of fresh blood revitalizing liberty.  its a major pro-immigration point.  I dont think hunter has figured out a cohesive and consistent position.

Amen to that. I would be happy to let a lot of illegals that have "american souls" as defined by you, but only if we can trade our shitty americans to other countries.

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2010 06:55 AM (wuv1c)

131

"If a cat has kittens in my oven, that doesn't make them biscuits."

dude that is hilarious. i don't think it applies here, but it is a phrase i will be using in the future.

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2010 06:56 AM (wuv1c)

132

Parents can take their kids or leave them here with legal residents

i will volunteer to take in some 18yo hot latinas while they wait for their parents to come back legally

i'm a giver

Posted by: policiademarinajose at April 30, 2010 06:56 AM (gg4j2)

133 Wow DrewM and I agree

Posted by: Jean at April 30, 2010 06:57 AM (vb5IK)

134 102 82 Why do the left hate the police?
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at April 30, 2010 11:33 AM (7VvJB)


Because they don't wear those "Village People style" moustaches anymore.

Posted by: wooga at April 30, 2010 06:58 AM (2p0e3)

135 And maybe he supports changing the law and/or the Constitution.  I'd be willing to be he doesn't advocate breaking the law.
Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 11:48 AM (1fanL)

Maybe, maybe not. But he said what he said.

Let's be honest, if a Democrat had advocated something which was so blatantly illegal and at odds with the basic kinds of things we expect elected officials to understand, a lot more people here would be going nuts.


Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 06:58 AM (9B5OK)

136 I took Hunter to mean the children, if you're going to deport their parents, what's supposed to happen to the child? Foster care? They have dual citizenship, don't they? Let them come back when they're 18 or sooner if their parents become legal.

Posted by: pajama momma at April 30, 2010 06:59 AM (U9cja)

137 Drew is starting to tarry about like Mabriel Galor on this isssue, also obnoxiously lawyerlistic like him as well.


Posted by: McLovin at April 30, 2010 06:59 AM (RwvN1)

138 I think everyone in the press is making a big deal out of that little bit of question and answer. That was probably 30 seconds in a 1 hour speech with Q&A.

He has a brief interchange with someone who is probably a plant.  Yes his answer was less than stellar.

But we are reported conservatives here allowing the press to once again define us and put a "macaca" moment in our arguments.

I have screamed about this in the past, do not allow the press to make out choices.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 06:59 AM (QrA9E)

139 Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 11:54 AM (QrA9E)

What color is the sky in your world? Let me guess...whatever color you want it to be.

Watch the video. He says yes, he would deport American citizens who are the children of illegal aliens.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 07:00 AM (9B5OK)

140 This is where I get nervous, where the GOP lets the nativists let their freak flag fly.

Posted by: sexypig at April 30, 2010 07:00 AM (EdAmz)

141 Wow DrewM and I agree
Posted by: Jean at April 30, 2010 11:57 AM (vb5IK)

I didn't know we usually didn't.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 07:00 AM (9B5OK)

142 We celebrate new citizens, most people, particularly the newly minted Americans really don't like people being able to circumvent the system the way the illegals do it.   Funny, the dems/libs seem to make an art form out of circumventing the system yet they expect everyone else to follow the rules.   Look at WS and the public servants who are not paying their taxes.  They want me to pay mine but they are part of the kewl kids so they don't have to pay theirs,  they make a donation and expect a favor, so they send the ivy the money for twenty years and the kid, dumber than a doorknob gets in.   That's their system and you are not only expected to tolerate it and look the other way, you are not expected to mimic it cause then, since you are a republican or a conservative or an independent, you will be crucified in the media.  funny, we fixed health care, a system that essentially didn't need to be fixed, except to get out the fraud.  Yet the immigration system which is the most broken is left on the back burner (although I don't believe what he said on AF 1, that bill will be signed, sealed and delivered before the august recess).  they need to clsoe the borders, they need to declare a moratorium on immigration for 1 year.   Then they need to ask anyone who is here illegally who has had a child here who is an American citizen to come forward without fear of reprisal.  Those people should be permitted to apply for citizenship because they have an American child.  (although I'm still not sure that the law hasn't changed that being born here is a given that you are a citizen)  Then they can make it well know that after a certain date, like April 15, 2011, if you are born to an illegal immigrant who is not following the immigration process at the time of your birth, then you will not be recognized as an American citizen.  Why not apply logic and reasoning and have a plan instead of being emotional and demanding and following the "all or nothing' system.  Also, someone has to let the church know that they need to take their nose out of this, now.

Posted by: curious at April 30, 2010 07:02 AM (p302b)

143 "47 God Bless Arizona, the "Fuck This Shit State":

The new bill would make it illegal for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

http://tinyurl.com/2vcmheu

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 30, 2010 11:12 AM (aKUi6) "

Wow,  if I lived there I might even consider letting my children attend public school.

Posted by: Randy at April 30, 2010 07:02 AM (zQKSr)

144

clean-up aisle 105

 

Posted by: dananjcon at April 30, 2010 07:03 AM (pr+up)

145 Maybe, maybe not. But he said what he said.

Let's be honest, if a Democrat had advocated something which was so blatantly illegal and at odds with the basic kinds of things we expect elected officials to understand, a lot more people here would be going nuts.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 11:58 AM (9B5OK)

But since he's not a Democrat, maybe we shouldn't pile on him for not having used lawyerlike precision in talking to a bunch of nonlawyers.  Or you can keep having the vapors, whichever.  I can't believe you're seriously arguing that Duncan Hunter is advocating breaking the law.  This ain't law school.

Drew is starting to tarry about like Mabriel Galor on this isssue, also obnoxiously lawyerlistic like him as well.

Posted by: McLovin at April 30, 2010 11:59 AM (RwvN1)

Jesus H. Christ.

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2010 07:03 AM (1fanL)

146 Kicking out the millions of illegals who have lived in this country for more than a couple of years would be a humanitarian disaster and go down with the FDR Japanese internment as a black mark in American history.

But sooner or later, and hopefully sooner, the anchor baby law is going to have to be deleted.

Posted by: K at April 30, 2010 07:04 AM (bfcmA)

147 I agree with everyone!

Posted by: the guy who says "I agree with everyone!" at April 30, 2010 07:05 AM (YVZlY)

148 Get your facts straight before you post stuff.  The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with anchor babies.  Anchor babies became the law of the land via Ted Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Reform Bill.  No other nation in the world has such an idiotic immigration law.  Both parents are foreign nationals residing in the U.S. illegally and the baby is a U.S. citizen by virtue of birth?  What a joke!  Only a liberal could conceive of such nonsense.

Posted by: J.P. Travis at April 30, 2010 07:06 AM (eneAW)

149

The last time I checked, Article IV, Clause 2 of the Constitution is an actual part of the Consitution.  Ratified and everything.

 

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 30, 2010 07:06 AM (B+qrE)

150 This is the second post where I am wondering if they kidnapped Drew M and put someone else in his place.

Posted by: curious at April 30, 2010 07:07 AM (p302b)

151

Kicking out the millions of illegals who have lived in this country for more than a couple of years would be a humanitarian disaster and go down with the FDR Japanese internment as a black mark in American history.

Just like that black mark we got when we forcibly removed those poor Germans who had been living in France for years back in the 1940's....

Posted by: Harry Reid at April 30, 2010 07:08 AM (VmtE9)

152 Amen, Vic 139 - Hunter should have smelled "gotcha" even if he's not sharp enough to know the specifics. Frankly he should have gone with "it's outside my responsibilities as a California representative and I haven't read the law beyond what's been reported in the press, so all I can say is that I support the concept of enforcing the laws of the US rather than selectively ignoring them." As for 138, what's Drew doing to justify the criticism ? Asking what "is" means is lawyeristic. Complex language isn't the defining standard for when lawyering becomes BS.

Posted by: societyis2blame at April 30, 2010 07:08 AM (7ZyYf)

153 I disagree with everyone!

Posted by: the guy who says "I disagree with everyone!" at April 30, 2010 07:08 AM (zqzYV)

154 not having used lawyerlike precision in talking to a bunch of nonlawyers.
Posted by: McLovin at April 30, 2010 11:59 AM (RwvN1)

It was a yes/no question to which he responded "yes".

Seems everyone should be able to understand that.

As far as not piling on, trust me, I could have gone harder on him. It's was an absolutely idiotic thing to say.

I hate when liberals give their guys a pass for their stupidity, I see no reason why we should emulate that sort of intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 07:08 AM (9B5OK)

155 147 Kicking out the millions of illegals who have lived in this country for more than a couple of years would be a humanitarian disaster and go down with the FDR Japanese internment as a black mark in American history.

WTF? The Japanese were legally born and naturalized citizens. So essentially and by inference, you are for amnesty.

My apple tastes like an orange. You are gonna have to come up with a better metaphor than that.

Posted by: Lunatic Fringe at April 30, 2010 07:10 AM (uFdnM)

156 Posted by: societyis2blame at April 30, 2010 12:08 PM (7ZyYf)

Not for anything, but you guys have been saying you want real live human beings to run for office and you want to know what they really think and you want them to stick to their guns and then when someone does that, says that they want to deport the American citizen children of illegal immigrants, then you pillory them.  The dems don't do that, only you guys do it....

the way it was said, you sort of felt that the guy was making a point that the law is the law but you also knew that this guy was thinking about this and trying to come to terms with solutions in his own mind. 

But you go ahead and eat your own....don't let me stop you.

Posted by: curious at April 30, 2010 07:11 AM (p302b)

157

 

Drewm: Anchor babies are the soul of America.

Posted by: Lippy the Lion at April 30, 2010 07:11 AM (uFokq)

158 I'm not sure I agree.

Posted by: the guy caught in the headlights at April 30, 2010 07:12 AM (uFdnM)

159 I'm not sure I don't agree.

Posted by: the guy sitting on the fence at April 30, 2010 07:16 AM (zqzYV)

160 Agree?  Never heard of it.

Posted by: Charlie Gibson at April 30, 2010 07:17 AM (VmtE9)

161

The media are so complicit in all of this.  If just one story were done on 60 Minutes showing all these Mexican women running across the border to have their babies, and interviewing the hospital administrator about how much all of these unpaid-for births are costing them (and the taxpayers of the border states), the public would be up in arms.  Similarly, the media outside of Arizona have done a miserable job covering the kidnappings, murders, rapes, and other crimes being committed on a massive scale by illegals, the trashing of private property along the border, the piles of money being made by the organized human smuggling outfits, etc. 

There are places in middle America that have been taken over and trashed by illegals from Mexico and central America.  You never see any stories about these places in the media.  Talk to anyone from Shelbyville, Kentucky.  Talk to former mayor Lou Barletta in Hazelton, Pennsylvania.  Visit formerly lovely Norcross, Georgia, which has been turned into a third-world shithole where nobody speaks English.  I got lost there once a couple of years ago and thought I was in Guadalajara.  Had to go into 5 different stores to find anyone who could give me directions. 

Our media elites who drive opinion on immigration think everyone who comes over the border is just a hard-working gardener or bricklayer or nanny.  In the Washington, DC area it is virtually impossible to have any kind of home service or work performed that isn't employing honest, hardworking illegal immigrants.  But this is not the reality in southern California and Arizona or in many of America's smaller communities that have been taken over by illegal aliens.  People outside the Beltway and New York are fed up! 

Posted by: rockmom at April 30, 2010 07:20 AM (w/gVZ)

162

Duncan Hunter simply mispoke. He meant to say he would "exile" the American citizen children of illegals.

I kid.

But, I am in favor of revoking birthright citizenship for EVERYONE. That worked when we had a populace we could trust to instill American values in their children, and schools that took up the slack. There's too much ignorance of American history and values these days, and schools are actively working to promote it (at the higher levels, at least. Plenty of patriotic teachers, but not enough.)

Let Illegals' children born here, and mine as well take and pass a basic citizenship test before being eligible for voting privileges or social services.

Posted by: Randy at April 30, 2010 07:21 AM (zQKSr)

163 DrewM - we do usually disagree on citizenship law and procedure; when applied to the "other" topic.

Posted by: Jean at April 30, 2010 07:21 AM (JaO+v)

164 We don't visit the sins of the parents on the children in this country.

So if I shoot someone in the face during a robbery, I shouldn't be sent to jail because my son will be deprived of his father?

Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 07:22 AM (TIGTh)

165 #132

It depends a lot on whether or not the oven in question is turned on at the time.

Kind of reminds me of this image.  (Don't forget to look in the background on the left).

Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2010 07:25 AM (6Q9g2)

166

Congressman Duncan Hunter really needs to consider what he says because stuff like this is not helping anyone.

 

Exactly. One step at a time.  Birthright citizenship is still the law.

 

One reason for defending the conservative stance on illegal immigration is to increase the number of rational people who speak out on it, so that the irrational speakers attract less attention.

Posted by: CJ at April 30, 2010 07:25 AM (9KqcB)

167 Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 12:22 PM (TIGTh)

No but you aren't treated like a second class citizen who is not possessed of a sufficiently American soul.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 07:28 AM (9B5OK)

168 158: Umm, I came to this thread late and apparently missed the part where it got uber angry and personal. What part of "you guys" did I suddenly become and what did I say to justify the "go ahead and eat my..." when I simply agreed with Vic and posted a pretty bland question as to why Drew was getting flamed ? The ad hominem shit around here has been getting thick lately. Can someone post a fucking comment without being name-called or being told to eat something ?

Posted by: societyis2blame at April 30, 2010 07:28 AM (7ZyYf)

169

Why not apply logic and reasoning and have a plan instead of being emotional and demanding and following the "all or nothing' system. 

I'm with curious. At some point you have to draw a line. If it's amnesty for illegal aliens who have worked here for years, then so be it. And then stop. No more. Tighten up the border, and go after illegals from within.

Tough choices have to be made. There of course will be a lot of fall-out, but doing nothing, trying to ignore the whole problem, is sheer idiocy. It won't go away, and is only getting worse.

Posted by: HH at April 30, 2010 07:30 AM (6oDXl)

170 I wonder if those Amercian citizens born to illegal aliens waving those Mexican flags Democrats in Congress could be considered not having an American soul?

Posted by: Tom Servo at April 30, 2010 07:32 AM (T1boi)

171 168: My thoughts exactly. I'll hunker down now and await being called twelve kinds of fuckstick by our newly-appointed Purity Committee members because I agreed with you as well.

Posted by: societyis2blame at April 30, 2010 07:34 AM (7ZyYf)

172

No but you aren't treated like a second class citizen who is not possessed of a sufficiently American soul.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 12:28 PM (9B5OK)\


I just don't see the distinction. Dad breaks the laws, there are consequences.

Deportation isn't punishment. It's righting the wrong. Daddy wasn't supposed to be here, so GTFO. Sorry if that effects Jr negatively, but I can't control what people's parents do.

Shit happens. If I did something to impoverish my family, my son would suffer, too, even though it isn't his fault.





Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 07:38 AM (TIGTh)

173 Alternatively, I guess you could offer to keep the kid as a ward of the state and the parents get the boot.

I don't think most would take that deal, but who knows?

I just don't think having a kid at the right time and place should be a free pass on obeying our laws. It isn't in any other case.

Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 07:40 AM (TIGTh)

174 147/157

Of course the new AZ law (if actually enforced. . .which remains to be seen) will provide for some increase level of deportation, but so far as I know, nobody is talking seriously about hunting down and/or expelling millions of illegal aliens.  That's a non-starter for any number of reasons.

The issue is about having some sort of rational enforcement mechanism for existing policy. 

More to the point, the issue is mostly about changing incentives for illegals.  If illegal aliens have a harder time finding  jobs, and actually face some reasonable possibility that they might get deported, then some of the illegals already here may choose to leave all by themselves, and fewer will want to enter.

In other words, if you simply make the climate less favorable for illegal aliens, you'll have a lot fewer of them without having to have mass deportations.

Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2010 07:41 AM (6Q9g2)

175 I mean, let's take this to an absurd extreme.

What if I don't get my kid the proper shots and he isn't allowed in school?

Is he being treated like a 2nd class citizen because he's being denied an education?
It's not HIS fault I'm irresponsible.

Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 07:42 AM (TIGTh)

176 Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 12:38 PM (TIGTh)

Two things, when I wrote the bit about 'visiting the sins of the parents on the children" I was talking about Hunter's disgusting notion that these kids who are born and raised here are some how less American than others. That's insane. It doesn't matter what their parents did before they were born. These kids are as American as anyone.

If you want to apply it to the deportation part, it still doesn't stand up. American citizen children of illegals aren't legally less Americans than anyone else. Their rights aren't limited or compromised because of what their parents did before they were born.


Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 07:43 AM (9B5OK)

177 If you want to apply it to the deportation part, it still doesn't stand up. American citizen children of illegals aren't legally less Americans than anyone else. Their rights aren't limited or compromised because of what their parents did before they were born.

Ok. So you're good with sending the parents home and putting the kids under State care?

Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 07:44 AM (TIGTh)

178 If not, why not?

Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 07:45 AM (TIGTh)

179 Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 12:42 PM (TIGTh)

I think your missing the simple point. Hunter was asked if he supported the deportation of American citizens. He said "yes".

That's an illegal impossibility. Americans can not be deported from America.

It was a dumb thing for him to agree to.

For the purposes of rights and privileges under the Constitution if you are an American citizen, your parents' legal status has zero relevance. Hunter was wrong to say otherwise.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 07:46 AM (9B5OK)

180 Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 12:44 PM (TIGTh)

See my 127

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 07:46 AM (9B5OK)

181 re: My 184

"That's an illegal impossibility. Americans can not be deported from America."

Should read:

That's a legal impossibility. Americans can not be deported from America.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 07:49 AM (9B5OK)

182 I think your missing the simple point. Hunter was asked if he supported the deportation of American citizens. He said "yes".

Meh.

I don't know. If he's talking about forced deportation of kids, I see your point.

What if he's just saying, "Yeah, the parents with the anchor babies gotta go. If that means the kids go, too, I support that."?

He says WALKING across the border doesn't make you an American citizen.

An anchor baby can't do that, being, you know, not born and all.

It's possible he meant the parents and phrased it awkwardly.

Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 07:49 AM (TIGTh)

183 The way birthright citizenship has been interpreted is incorrect.  There needs to be a constitutional challenge.  Becoming a citizen nowadays is akin to hitting the lottery because of the massive entitlements you are eligible for.  We are NUTS for allowing illegal activity to result in massive financial rewards.

Duncan Hunter was right, and FUCK YOU DREW.  Anybody can say whatever they want you pussy.

Posted by: Ken Royall at April 30, 2010 07:49 AM (9zzk+)

184

DANGER, DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!!!

Stay away from Gizmodo.com...site is infected with some kind of virus/malware.  My manager just had two of his computers hosed from go to that site....

and no, this is not a hoax; I have nothing against Gizmodo, but this did just happen to the boss, so...

Posted by: Cave Bear at April 30, 2010 07:51 AM (WmZrs)

185 I don't know. If he's talking about forced deportation of kids, I see your point.

What if he's just saying, "Yeah, the parents with the anchor babies gotta go. If that means the kids go, too, I support that."?

Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 12:49 PM (TIGTh)

Watch the video, he says what he says. And people applaud.

You're cutting him slack that's not warranted by his own words. I get the impulse to protect 'our' guys and I didn't go as nuclear as I might have had it been a Dem. But if he doesn't clarify his remarks or doubles down on him, I will have no compunction unloading on him.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 07:52 AM (9B5OK)

186 What if he's just saying, "Yeah, the parents with the anchor babies gotta go. If that means the kids go, too, I support that."?

That's how I took it.
Yesterday I personally spoke to a gentleman who's running for an Assembly Seat in San Diego. His day job is in healthcare in Chula Vista which is right outside our border with Mexico. He said there are women giving birth there right this minute who were in Mexico less than 12 hours ago and this happens MANY times a day.

Posted by: pajama momma at April 30, 2010 07:52 AM (fo4Wl)

187 In fact, I'm almost sure he meant the parents, not the kids. He had to have meant them.

He said walking across the border.

I don't even think this was part of the discussion about the kids.

I'd watch the YouTube video, but my speakers aren't working. (I'm half packed for a move.)

Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 07:52 AM (TIGTh)

188 Watch the video, he says what he says. And people applaud.

Alright. I'll shut up since I can't look at the source material. No use arguing from ignorance.

Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 07:53 AM (TIGTh)

189

 

I'll hunker down now and await being called twelve kinds of fuckstick by our newly-appointed Purity Committee members because I agreed with you as well.

Posted by: societyis2blame at April 30, 2010 12:34 PM (7ZyYf)

It has gotten pretty out of hand lately. I read this blog every day, but only post on occasion (unless it’s a topic that really gets me, then it’s more frequent.) Been here for years, but if I take the wrong stance the response is usually to sidestep what I wrote and go right to the “troll!” chant. Or RHINO. Or whatever catchphrases the intertubes are belching out today.

 

One thing is obvious, some just enjoy fighting the fight more than winning it. So making the conservative case, step-by-step, doesn’t hold much appeal.

 

p.s. I can’t seem to remove the extra spacing in my posts, as much as I clear my format. Must be a troll thing.

Posted by: CJ at April 30, 2010 07:54 AM (9KqcB)

190 In fact, I'm almost sure he meant the parents, not the kids. He had to have meant them.

He meant the kids, but what are we supposed to do with the kids? Put them in foster care?

I will say this, had I been born in Mexico, I would also beg borrow and steal to get to this country. I would break those laws for my children.

Posted by: pajama momma at April 30, 2010 07:55 AM (fo4Wl)

191 In fact, I'm almost sure he meant the parents, not the kids. He had to have meant them.
Posted by: Warden at April 30, 2010 12:52 PM (TIGTh)

Watch the video, it starts at about :39.

Oh, I see you can't. Take my word this is a correct transcript of what he says. The only omission is Hunter repeats the question before saying, "I would have to, yes".

"An audience member asked Hunter, "Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens?"

Hunter responded, "I would have to, yes.""

He said what he said, everyone else is spinning for him.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 07:56 AM (9B5OK)

192 Give the anchor babies American citizenship and kick them out with their parents if said parents don't want to give them up.  If they want to come back legally in an adult state, let them.  They're already Mexican citizens through the virtue of birth to Mexicans, so Mexico shouldn't have a problem admitting them back into the country.  The parents should not get special treatment just because they had a baby on our soil.  They're still illegal - if they wanted to be American citizens, they could go through the proper channels, instead of using a defenseless child as an excuse to break our laws.

Posted by: soulpile at April 30, 2010 07:57 AM (afWhQ)

193 p.s. I can’t seem to remove the extra spacing in my posts, as much as I clear my format. Must be a troll thing.

doo doo head

Posted by: pajama momma at April 30, 2010 07:57 AM (fo4Wl)

194 I meant, "doo doo head troll"

Posted by: pajama momma at April 30, 2010 07:59 AM (fo4Wl)

195

"Look, feel free to argue all you want against this interpretation but it's simply the law of the land and has been for quite sometime."

 

=================

So, you're suggesting we adhere to the rule of law?  Interesting and novel idea, but why start now?

 

 

 

Posted by: Killmore Spout at April 30, 2010 08:00 AM (mQMnK)

196 #195 >>had I been born in Mexico, I would also beg borrow and steal to get to this country. I would break those laws for my children.

You wouldn't do it if it were difficult-to-impossible for you to find a job here, and if there were some reasonable likelihood that you'd be caught and unceremoniously shipped back to Mexico (with or without your kids).

And you wouldn't even THINK about doing something like this if Mexico had its economic and political house in order to begin with.

Again, its all about incentives.  The problem starts in Mexico, not in the USA.
 

Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2010 08:01 AM (PwGfd)

197 I have no problem with sending minor "anchor baby" kids back to the home country when deporting their illegal parents. A now deceased, old Italian uncle of mine, who was born in the US of immigrant parents, went back to Italy as a child when the family wasn't able to make it in the US in the early 20th century. Once he became an adult, he returned to the US as a citizen and made a success of himself. The U.S. born children of illegals can do the same.

Posted by: Dave in Reno at April 30, 2010 08:02 AM (uwrkE)

198

Everyone seems to be missing the Elephant in the room.

And that would be MEXICO.

Corrupt, poverty stricken, sending their poor flooding into the U.S.

And then having the goddamn nerve to complain about our border policies.

If Linda Ronstadt wants to complain about illegal aliens, maybe not only should she testify before the U.S. Congress, but perhaps she should fly down to Mexico City and complain to them.

Anyone care to bet on that happening?

Posted by: HH at April 30, 2010 08:02 AM (6oDXl)

199 Perhaps the Congressman can explain to me how exactly you deport American citizens from America.

By passing a law which permits the executive department to do so. Banishment isn't exactly an unprecedented concept.

Still, how I'd work it is this: children under the age of 18 born in the US to illegal immigrants are deported with their parents. If they choose to come back when they are of age, they are welcome to, and they retain their citizenship, but until that point, they may not. This would effectively detonate the "anchor baby" effect without needing any new laws.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 30, 2010 08:02 AM (PQY7w)

200 He meant the kids, but what are we supposed to do with the kids? Put them in foster care?

Works for me. Let the parents choose between taking their kids with them or giving up them.  Don't want to lose your kid?  Don't fly to America 8.5 months pregnant.

(Assuming Mexicans can't understand this well enough to make a conscious choice is disgustingly racist.)

Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 30, 2010 08:02 AM (mR7mk)

201

I do not agree with your reading of Wong Kim Ark. We can leave it at that.

Unfortunately, Vic, the court will go with Drew (and no, I don't think he's happy about that either). When the 14th Amendment was drawn up, nobody foresaw this.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 30, 2010 08:06 AM (tH7KR)

202 24 months in prison for illegal entry, followed by deportation, would go a long way toward eliminating illegal entry.

Prosecute slowly and let the illegals self-deport.

Posted by: damian at April 30, 2010 08:07 AM (4WbTI)

203 Save these children from being raised by criminals.

If the child is young enough to be adopted, terminate parental rights, and adopt the child out. Put older children in foster care.

Give teenage children the option to either choose foster care, or go with their parents when they are deported. They can return once they get free of their parents.


Posted by: Kristopher at April 30, 2010 08:10 AM (kCEOg)

204 #197

Its pretty simple, I think.

You say, "You're being deported.  You can take your kids with you or not; your choice". 

Note that except under extraordinary circumstances, minor kids do NOT get to choose where they live. . .that's up to the parents.

Given that choice, the parents will probably do whatever is best for the family under that circumstances. 

In most cases, they would probably opt to take the kids with them, particularly if they are small.  If the kids are are older, and/or there are friends and/or relatives for the kids to stay with, perhaps they could stay.  That's going to vary on a case by case basis.  In reality, I think very few parents would ever opt to put their kids into foster care or put them up for adoption.  

Note again, that the kids (if born of at least one Mexican parent) should be instantly able to become Mexican nationals, so even though they are American citizens, their entry into Mexico is not an issue.  If the kids like, then can return to the USA *any time they like* and stay as long as they like, as they are already US citizens.

Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2010 08:11 AM (6Q9g2)

205 "189

DANGER, DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!!!

Stay away from Gizmodo.com...site is infected with some kind of virus/malware.  My manager just had two of his computers hosed from go to that site....

and no, this is not a hoax; I have nothing against Gizmodo, but this did just happen to the boss, so...

Posted by: Cave Bear at April 30, 2010 12:51 PM (WmZrs)"

Didn't the government or some kind of contractor seize their computers?   That's weird.

Posted by: curious at April 30, 2010 08:12 AM (p302b)

206 By passing a law which permits the executive department to do so. Banishment isn't exactly an unprecedented concept.

First, thanks for actually answering the question.

Alas it begs another...how exactly does a law trump a constitutional right and/or privilege?

And yes, banishment is an unprecedented concept in American and one I'd think most conservatives would prefer not to set (even if they could, which thankfully they can't)

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 08:15 AM (9B5OK)

207 DrewM, via Weasel http://tinyurl.com/2a63t2c, 71% support AZ bill.

Posted by: Jean at April 30, 2010 08:17 AM (qU2w5)

208 #207

2 years?  Ouch.  3 months for illegal presence in the country  would be plenty of extra deterrent. . .assuming it ever happened. . .though it never would.

Nobody wants to stuff our already overcrowded prisons  with individuals whose major crime is just unlawful presence in the country.  Throwing people in prison requires a legal process, and that likely involves a right to bail.  Do you think these illegals would actually going to show up to hearings and so forth? 

In my opinion, this wouldn't be necessary anyway.

Just *some* enforcement of an actual deportation policy would have a major chilling effect on illegal immigration.  Again, there is no need to actually deport everyone, and not even close. 

Just create a climate where its hard for illegals to find jobs, and a real possibility for illegals to be deported, and you'll see a major shift in illegal immigration.

Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2010 08:21 AM (PwGfd)

209

#213 has it. The Border Wall doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to curtail illegal aliens. Ditto for employer sanctions. And yes, you can do BOTH.

Sure, a hardy or lucky alien will still cross, and the underground economy will still employ a few illegals.

But just *taking action* is enough to work. Don't buy into the all-or-nothing fallacy.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 30, 2010 08:25 AM (tH7KR)

210 I don't think deporting or "banishing" anyone who's presently considered an American citizen is a politically achieveable option even it we wanted to (which some of us here do and some don't). However, the anchor baby problem is real and will sink immigration policy by degrees just like Social Security and Medicare 2.1 are sinking pensions and healthcare. I'd like to steal back a good idea that got hijacked. We genuinely do need a new consensus on immigration policy with open debate and laws that mean what they say and will be enforced as they plainly call for, not as we do now. The "comprehensive reform" crowd stole that idea to shell-game an amnesty. Unlike the comprehensive amnesty crowd, I'd begin with the premise that everyone who's an actual citizen at this point are the only people who get a say. Then: 1. We freeze immigration immediately 2. enact new laws which start with the premise that citizenship is a privilege we citizens choose to extend as we see fit, not a "right" in any sense

Posted by: societyis2blame at April 30, 2010 08:27 AM (7ZyYf)

211 An appropriate law would first, outlaw the provision of custody from a doctor or hospital of a US citizen child to a person who could not prove legal residency. Second, the States should provide adequate and reasonable time for the parents to apply for the appropriate overseas birth certificate from there respective embassy or consular office before taking legal custody of the child. and Third, stipulate that legal guardianship and custody of a US Citizen under the age of 18 is limited to Legal Residents.

Posted by: Jean at April 30, 2010 08:28 AM (7K04W)

212 damned return key... 3. set hard quotas on new immigration which require that the enforcement end has its house in order before we load the system further. It would be a start.

Posted by: societyis2blame at April 30, 2010 08:28 AM (7ZyYf)

213 2 years?  Ouch.

Fine.  I'll settle for a year-less-a-day and call it a misdemeanor.

I can get that for back-talking a judge in my county.

Deportation is not punishment and punishment is what deters.

Posted by: damian at April 30, 2010 08:29 AM (4WbTI)

214

So let me get this straight, now. You can't base a complaint about somebody being an illegal alien on their "national origin"?

I guess I'm just really confused.

Posted by: Optimizer at April 30, 2010 08:29 AM (JC+x3)

215 As to the anchor kid question itself, both parents would be required to be citizens for their child to be entitled to "at birth" citizenship. Anything short means they have to go through the naturalization process.

Posted by: societyis2blame at April 30, 2010 08:31 AM (7ZyYf)

216 I think everyone needs to take a look at Faces of the Fallen at the WaPo and realize there are a helluva lot of Gomes, Hernandez, etc. who are dying for our country. I would guess some of those were anchor babies. Not saying illegals should get amnesty, but a baby who is born and ends up raised here may in fact be more american than mexican...assholes at rallies aside - those idiots are only part of the story.

Posted by: sexypig at April 30, 2010 08:32 AM (EdAmz)

217 "As to the anchor kid question itself, both parents would be required to be citizens for their child to be entitled to "at birth" citizenship. Anything short means they have to go through the naturalization process." fuck you. i am an american citizen so my kid is too, no matter what nationality my wife is. this is why i despise the immigration issue - brings out the complete assholes.

Posted by: sexypig at April 30, 2010 08:34 AM (EdAmz)

218 scoietyis2 blame, so every GI who brought home a wife from overseas knows their kids aren't real americans...nice, real nice. Let em guess, your ancestors came from poland and italy in 1905.

Posted by: sexypig at April 30, 2010 08:38 AM (EdAmz)

219 here is the problem with the anchor babies............they have illegal parents.........so fine give the babies american citizenship....the parents still need to go home and they can choose to  bring their american citizen home with them or leave their citizen here with a new legal family until they can come back america legally 

Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 30, 2010 08:44 AM (wgUIE)

220 fuck you. i am an american citizen so my kid is too, no matter what nationality my wife is. this is why i despise the immigration issue - brings out the complete assholes.

Hardly warrants all the name calling.

Posted by: pajama momma at April 30, 2010 08:46 AM (fo4Wl)

221 Unfortunately, Vic, the court will go with Drew (and no, I don't think he's happy about that either). When the 14th Amendment was drawn up, nobody foresaw this.

Look at my post number 88.That IS what every one quotes as the court case.  It dealt with legal aliens in permanent residence.

Not illegals who dash across the border to deliver a meal ticket on U.S. soil. That was my original point. Everyone says Wong Kim Ark ruled FOR the anchor baby interpretation and that simply is not true.

What that means is that this mess with anchor babies can be fixed with statutory law and doesn't need an amendment. 

While true the current court may rule otherwise that doesn't make it true that Wong Kim Ark is the controlling case for Anchor Babies. But hell, the current court (most of them) rule the government could take property at will and arbitrarily changed "use" to "purpose".

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2010 08:48 AM (QrA9E)

222 Why would you worry about a bunch of people that have no business being in this country when the Gulf of Mexico is in such danger? This is Obama's fault, him and his friends the Ayers. Those are the people that you should be worried about. They want this country to go down in flames and they are doing it. They blew that rig up and now are as happy as they can be. Why do you think it took him 10 days to pay any attention to what is going on down here?

Posted by: Sweetpea at April 30, 2010 09:09 AM (pU2Mf)

223 Duncan Hunter answered "I WOULD have to , yes"

He did NOT say "yes, I (currently)support deporting American citizen children"

and he clarified about clarifying that rule, that "anchor babies" would not be allowed.

I took it as the hypothetical ... Duncan would support that after that ruling was clarified.  As Vic says, he was responding to the question.

So Hunter wants the ruling clarified, then yes, after that  he "would have to support the deporting" of what were previously born as anchor babies.

Glad I could resolve all that for you guys. 


Posted by: bill at April 30, 2010 09:13 AM (cqFRV)

224

 

doo doo head

I like your new sig.

Posted by: Lippy the Lion at April 30, 2010 09:14 AM (uFokq)

225 Nothing says that we can't amend the law and prohibit future 'anchor babies'.

Far as I know, we're the ONLY country to automatically confer citizenship on the basis of birth.

Posted by: GarandFan at April 30, 2010 09:14 AM (6mwMs)

226

I'm checking now, (not enough info just yet), but Canada addressed their anchor baby problems with in the last 2-3 years via legislation.

 

Posted by: TheThinMan at April 30, 2010 09:18 AM (W3XUk)

227 bill, you interpreted the conversation exactly the way I heard it.

Posted by: pajama momma at April 30, 2010 09:19 AM (fo4Wl)

228

One interesting side effect of this upcoming law is that it has shifted the overall debate considerably. Liberals, who formerly saw the "wall" on the border as a heinous measure are now endorsing that as a humane and desirable alternative.

The law, although not in force yet, has already made a difference.

As Warden said above, this law is not punishment to anyone. It is righting a wrong...the laws that were broken when the border was crossed.

Americans must face consequences if we break our laws. Mexicans should too.

Posted by: Who Knows at April 30, 2010 09:30 AM (7FgWm)

229 Well, he got the "pig" part right.  I'm sure his mother thinks he's sexy, though.

Posted by: kathysaysso at April 30, 2010 09:32 AM (ZtwUX)

230 But separate from that, I still don't know that "anchor babies" are "legit" citizens, only that some bureaucrats have done it that way for long enough that it would now be hard to deny those that already got used to their "entitlement".

Same with the "profiling" and civil rights ... police are trained to look for many reasons to suspect someone of a crime (like illegally entering the country) ... there are many legit things to look for (profile for) besides a non-English speakers stuffed in a trunk.

Every time a tall (handsome) white guy robs a bank, I expect to be "profiled".


Posted by: bill at April 30, 2010 09:36 AM (cqFRV)

231 Texas Gov: Arizona Immigration Law 'Not Right' for Texas
FOX

Texas pussies.


Posted by: Barbarian at April 30, 2010 09:42 AM (EL+OC)

232

Set up  deer stands along the border, let american citizens who gives a crap about states rights, LEGAL immigration and soveriegnty of our borders, ( like myself ) have an open season, NO bag limits.

Posted by: John Mosby, fired up ,ready to go ! at April 30, 2010 09:56 AM (pU2Mf)

233 There's no problem with illegal immigration on the Southern border! There are no criminals, gang members, or agents of foreign governments sneaking across our wide-open borders! All that talk about "taking back" or "liberating Aztlan" from US territories by members of La Raza or MEChA, and the concept of 'Aztlan' itself is not problematic in the least!
The unholy alliance between the elements in our govenment which seem bent on transforming our nation into a european-style socialist collective, and the pro-crime illegal immigrant apologists - and the illegals themselves, are of no importance whatsoever! Pay no attention to any American flag desecration - it means nothing! There will be no hatred or contempt for America or Americans at any of the pro-illegal immigration rallies coming in the next few days!

There is absolutely nothing to worry about!

Let us all kneel down, hold hands, bow our heads, and cry blood-tears of joy that our enlightened society will allow itself to be destroyed without making a fuss. It would just get so... messy.

Now, watch your Dancing With The Stars - then go back to sleep.



Posted by: The Highland Pipes - that heartless sarcastic bastard at April 30, 2010 09:57 AM (5v5hP)

234 Posted by: bill at April 30, 2010 02:13 PM (cqFRV)

You're absolutely right. If you put some words in the mouths of the guy asking the question and Hunter, yep, you get exactly what you just laid out.

Meanwhile here in the world where we're going by what they both said, then, alas, not so much for your interpretation.

Even if you accept some idea about some future clarification of some unstated ruling, you are still left with Hunter saying "yes" when asked if he would support "deportation of natural-born American citizens".

If there was this mythical clarification you speak up, the questions was asked specifically about "natural-born American citizens".

The fact that there are people defending the notion of deporting "American citizens" from America is amazing. But it's the internets, so I suppose I shouldn't be that surprised.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 09:59 AM (9B5OK)

235 We could be being too hard on Dunc. Could be he's not talking about heritage or dna, but something more subtle, even epistemologically distinct from spirituality. Instead of inserting rectal microchips in everyone, like the Dems are planning, it could be all it will take is a laser scanner, something like the check-out clerks at Albertsons or Piggly Wiggly: Cheeznits-meep; carton of Marlboros-meep; 2 gallon family size Val-U-Rite-meep; could you look up here sir? American belief and value system-meep. Have a nice day!

Posted by: Shooter at April 30, 2010 10:00 AM (zfRju)

236

God Bless Arizona, the "Fuck This Shit State":
http://tinyurl.com/2vcmheu    Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 30, 2010 11:12 AM (aKUi6) 

Now we're talkin. I might have to move to AZ,  these people seem to have their shit together.

Posted by: Old Hippie Vet at April 30, 2010 10:09 AM (3IZGh)

237 Drew, perhaps he could have been clearer, but you are the one putting words in his mouth.  He did NOT say "YES".

He said "I would have to, yes", to the question "Would you ..."

These are both conditional and future tense ... as I understand English.  granted it is Midwest English ... but still ...


Posted by: bill at April 30, 2010 10:11 AM (cqFRV)

238 These are both conditional and future tense ... as I understand English.
Posted by: bill at April 30, 2010 03:11 PM (cqFRV)

Here's the thing...I don't support deporting Americans from America in any tense or under any condition. I find it hard to believe anyone, especially a sitting Congressman, does.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 10:29 AM (9B5OK)

239 The fact that there are people defending the notion of deporting "American citizens" from America is amazing. But it's the internets, so I suppose I shouldn't be that surprised. Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 02:59 PM (9B5OK) heh. . Lookie heah, it's getting to the inevitable result of pedro and companies invasion, which is what is really going on : they are NOT coming here to assimilate, but dominate. Laws, they don' care about no stinkin' laws, that's for the gringos ! You must get out more, sonny.

Posted by: John Mosby, fired up ,ready to go ! at April 30, 2010 10:31 AM (pU2Mf)

240 Buy-cott Arizona.  I just sent 10 of these to SF Mayor Gavin Newsom.

http://tinyurl.com/29tmpoh

Posted by: kathysaysso at April 30, 2010 10:35 AM (ZtwUX)

241 Well, on further review, he does say to deport current citizens with their parents. 

http://fwd4.me/M9M

"Hunter’s staff has tried to clarify his comments by pointing out that he's supporting legislation that would solve this problem by making citizenship no longer automatic for children of illegal immigrants born here.

But, asked directly whether he still would advocate for deporting under-aged citizens even if this bill never sees the light of day, he confirmed he would. I asked whether this meant he supported empowering the government to deport those whose rights are enshrined by the 14th Amendment.

“We should empower the government to forcibly maintain that family unit, and send them with the parents back home,” Hunter said."

So yeah, I'd have to say till they clarify the anchor baby rules, the kid is a citizen but the parents might have to be deported.

Posted by: bill at April 30, 2010 10:50 AM (cqFRV)

242 Posted by: bill at April 30, 2010 03:50 PM (cqFRV)

I wish I had seen that earlier. I wouldn't have given him the benefit of the doubt.

I wanted to see him back off it and not have to go after one of 'our' guys, especially one that served in the GWOT but that's a disgusting position for a Congressman to take.

It's also demonstrates an absolute ignorance of the law.

The guy is a nutjob on this issue.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 11:00 AM (9B5OK)

243 To hell with the kids of illegals. They are not American. They don't belong here. Send them to Mexico. That's my view, and as one who has the misfortune of being White (and a Straight Male), its shared by many. Let's be clear: EVERY non-White has priority, special privileges, preferences, against White Males. ANY White male (who is not born to millions) should therefore try to limit as many non-Whites (who get preference, by law, over him, in everything) and kick out those who are here already. The Constitution makes me, a White Male, the lowest of the low. Last in line for everything. As VDH wrote in NRO, no White Males need apply to be professors any more in Universities. Or Police, or Firemen. Or government work of any kind. Or government contracting. The Constitution exists to screw over White Men to benefit non-Whites, and a subset of White Women, along with rich connected White guys like say, Beau Biden. Or Patches Kennedy. I agree with Hunter. I WANT MY GOODIES! I want first call, not last, on government resources. I paid for it! So sure, kick every kid of illegals out. Why not? They sure as hell cut in front of me for everything, while I'm told as a White guy I'm the source of all evil, and White guys (except for cool ones like Sting and Patches Kennedy) should all die. Kids of illegals all wave Mexican flags on May 1 anyway, so they'd be happy there, back in Mexico. No more having to put up with "racist" White guys like me, and they can scream even louder about how us White guys need to go back to Europe because America belongs to them.

Posted by: whiskey at April 30, 2010 11:05 AM (L03mw)

244

Pending law still causing changes....May Day protests are to concentrate numbers in Los Angeles (Gloria Estefan singing and motto "We are all Arizona") while smaller number of "activists" are to mostly conduct educational outreach to affected groups in Phoenix.

See? The shift to California has already begun. They don't want to chance it in Arizona so much.

Posted by: Who Knows at April 30, 2010 11:09 AM (7FgWm)

245 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---------

Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as the are here illegally, they are subject to and are still citizens of their home country, i.e. Mexico, etc..

Posted by: fgfgdfgdfgd at April 30, 2010 11:30 AM (Tfuib)

246 At best you can say Hunter wants to deport the illegal alien parents ... and then require the kid to go with them.  That sorta makes sense, but it would seem the parents would have the option to "abandon" the kid to the hands of the US government, or a legal relative.

I'd like to see HR 1868 pushed, and make the left defend anchor babies.  I wonder how that issue polls.

Posted by: bill at April 30, 2010 11:37 AM (cqFRV)

247 Posted by: bill at April 30, 2010 04:37 PM (cqFRV)

I think we agree.

I'd go a bit further. If the parents are deported/agree to leave and decide to take their kids, the minors have no recourse to challenge that. The minors don't have the right to live here against their parent's wishes.

Yeah, I'd love to have the issue of anchor babies to fight. I don't think it would matter if it passed since it won't pass muster under current rulings but the Court may take a different view and correct the old error.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 11:59 AM (9B5OK)

248

"I wanted to see him back off it and not have to go after one of 'our' guys, especially one that served in the GWOT but that's a disgusting position for a Congressman to take.

It's also demonstrates an absolute ignorance of the law.

The guy is a nutjob on this issue."

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 04:00 PM (9B5OK)

For not wanting to "have to go after" him, you seem to relish the task.  Why are you so exercised about something that is so highly unlikely to happen.  And, if it did happen, if you are correct about the law the first anchor baby deported would supply the SC test case that ended the practice.  Right?

 

 

Posted by: Killmore Spout at April 30, 2010 12:06 PM (mQMnK)

249 And, if it did happen, if you are correct about the law the first anchor baby deported would supply the SC test case that ended the practice.  Right?

If by 'that practice' you mean deportation of citizens, yeah. If it even got to SCOTUS. There would not likely be any splits between circuits (they'd all rule against it). There'd have to be 4 justices really jonesing to get into it to get it before the court. Even then, it would be struck down in a heart beat.

If by 'that practice' you mean birthright citizenship in general, I'd doubt they'd get to it. You can decide the illegality of deporting citizens without examining the issue of birthright citizenship.

To undo birthright citizenship, which I support but doubt will ever happen, it will take passage of a law undoing it (and a successful defense of that law at SCOTUS) or a constitutional amendment.

Alas, none of that is even remotely likely any time soon. And by soon I mean in the next decade.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2010 12:36 PM (9B5OK)

250

"An audience member asked Hunter, 'Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens?'"

Hunter responded, 'I would have to, yes.'"

 

If I missed this being pointed out already, I'm sorry. Duncan Hunter and others here are conflating two types of citizens. A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CANNOT, by definition, have illegal aliens as parents. That is not to say that children born on U.S. soil of illegal alien parents are not U.S. CITIZENS. But "U.S. CITIZEN" AND "U.S. NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" are not the same. Natural born requires that both parents (plural) are U.S. citizens at the time of the birth of their child. Just like Obama. Oh, wait...

Posted by: Natural born can't have illegal parent at April 30, 2010 12:57 PM (qwN1P)

251

I have a simple solution for the anchor baby issue

Be it enacted:  That the location of the the delievery of a baby by an Alien Citizen shall be considered the Consulate Territory of the Nation of Origin of the Mother, for the duration of the delivery

 

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at April 30, 2010 02:59 PM (9qVYM)

252 Define  Natural born as biologic not adopted child of a US Citizen, I don;'t really care if both parents are US citizen let the Citzenship derive from both to the age of majority and then make them choose NO dual citizenship at least not recognized by US Law we have no control over another nation recognizing a US Citizen as also a Citizen of their Nation

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at April 30, 2010 03:04 PM (9qVYM)

253 We should eliminate the anger baby loophole altogether.

It's nothing but misguided nostalgia that's letting us be played for saps.

Posted by: MlR at April 30, 2010 03:29 PM (v18zq)

254 "The borders need to be closed and the laws need to be enforced.  period....even if it isn't politically correct. "

The joke being - it is politically correct. That phrase used to mean truths that couldn't be uttered because they are politically unpopular. But in this case an overwhelming majority of the population support it, no matter what the priests and priestesses of brain-dead open borders utopianism declare it. They're the ones who are politically incorrect.

Posted by: MlR at April 30, 2010 03:32 PM (v18zq)

255

I live in Tucson. There are parts of the town where an Anglo dare not walk. Want something to eat....good luck, unless you speak Spanish.  I am sick to death of these disgusting, perverted, crime ridden bags of filth screwing up a nice town. fFuck 'em, and their bratty kids, too.

True story...two years ago, I was going hiking in the Santa Rita mountains south of Tucson. I was gearing up, canteen, hiking stick, etc....A Coronado National Forest Ranger drives into the parking lot at the trailhead, and, naturally, we startd to chat.  He says something to the effect that he saw I had a sidearm...a 1917 .45 caliber revolver.  He asked me if I was hiking alone......I said yes, I usually hike alone.....He then asked me if I had a rifle with me.  Yup, I said.  Good, he stated..." You might want to carry it...'  So I wound up humping an AR-15 in addition to all the crap I was packing.  Seems the Tunnel Springs trail is a mecca for human and drug smuggling.....Fuck'em...round them up, and deport the lot of'em.... There are big, brown signs as you enter Coronado National Forest warning you of human and drug smuggling.....shoot first, and bury the bodies later...on the other hand, buzzards need to eat, too......

Jason J, Tucson

       

 

Posted by: Jason J at April 30, 2010 05:55 PM (EspwV)

256 If you are not *for* deporting the illegal parents of these "American" kids, then fuck it you are for amnesty.  Deport the parents and the kids will probably have to go along.  When they grow up, I guess they can come back.  If we make an exception for the parents, that is defacto amnesty and that is game over.

Posted by: Ken Royall at April 30, 2010 06:39 PM (9zzk+)

257 "We don't visit the sins of the parents on the children in this country"

I agree--but when Mike Huckabee, back in 2008, said those exact same words, a lot of folks on the right got apoplectic.

Why is that?

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at April 30, 2010 10:07 PM (zPeBn)

258 IP = 69.31.101.61

Posted by: spammer at April 30, 2010 11:59 PM (svPAw)

259 "If your wife is a legal immigrant no problem. If she's illegal then you are knowingly breaking the law. But its not about the big picture is it, its all about you." Bullshit. If one parent is American, the kid is American. No need for the other parent to apply for citizenship or residency. Anchor babies have no parent who is american or a legal resident - now I personally say if you are born on American soil, you are American, but that's at least debatable. Its fucking not debatable that children of American citizens are not American unless the government approves them.

Posted by: sexypig at May 01, 2010 03:29 AM (8/WOt)

260 Thanks

Posted by: Para Kontr at May 03, 2010 11:59 PM (Ryxbv)

261 Well , the view of the passage gucci hightops size9 is totally discount gucci boots correct gucci scarves ,your details is really reasonable and discount gucci sweaters you guy give gucci new leather shoes us valuable informative post, I totally agree the standpoint of upstairs. I often surfing on this forum when I m free and I find there are so much good information we can learn in this forum!

Posted by: discount gucci sneakers at September 30, 2010 09:52 AM (I1Y/p)

262 True story...two years ago, I was going hiking in the Santa Rita mountains south of Tucson. I was gearing up, canteen, hiking stick, etc....A Coronado National Forest Ranger drives into the parking lot at the trailhead, and, naturally, we startd to chat.  He says something to the effect that he saw I had a sidearm...a 1917 .45 caliber revolver.  .He asked me if I was hiking alone......I said yes, I usually hike alone.....He then asked me if I had a rifle with me. 

Posted by: free video converter at November 04, 2010 01:42 AM (2qjni)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
248kb generated in CPU 0.26, elapsed 1.4607 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.2548 seconds, 498 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.