- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,271
- Reaction score
- 28,078
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The following is a report from Fox News morning show this morning 12/06/18
Apparently a pregnant Honduran woman climbed over the wall in Tiajuana to Imperial Beach CA, and was arrested. A couple of days later she had a baby and was released into the country.
She stated her goal was to join her family in Columbus OH, and having a baby on US soil was "a big reward for the long journey in the caravan."
The Asian-American, herself a child of LEGAL Immigrants, rightly states "That is the achor baby problem."
I agree that the 14 Amendment has been completely perverted by the idea that all you need to do to jump the Immigration line is to have a baby on US soil, which then "anchors" you ahead of all other potential immigrants.
I hope the SCOTUS finally clarifies the issue, if Congress does not do it by law.
(Please don't cite United States v. Wong Kim Ark, as IMO the basis for that decision was the fact the Chinese parents were LEGAL alien resident's present by treaty to reside in the US, and thus both they and the native-born son were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Illegal migrants are citizens of a foreign nation present without permission, but subjects of a foreign nation (which is why they can be deported.) International law allows foreign citizens to be punished by the nations they are "visiting" if they violate the laws of that nation, so trying to argue this is what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is IMHO a stretch.
The law should prevent such misinterpretation of birthright citizenship, as the commentator states almost unique aside from Canada in the industrialized world, and that would stifle this "rush" to the borders of such line-jumpers.
I guess we'll have to see how SCOTUS deals with it since Congress refuses to do so.
She should have the choice of abandoning her child for her deportation OR be deported with her child - her choice.
The following is a report from Fox News morning show this morning 12/06/18
Apparently a pregnant Honduran woman climbed over the wall in Tiajuana to Imperial Beach CA, and was arrested. A couple of days later she had a baby and was released into the country.
She stated her goal was to join her family in Columbus OH, and having a baby on US soil was "a big reward for the long journey in the caravan."
.
The following is a report from Fox News morning show this morning 12/06/18
Apparently a pregnant Honduran woman climbed over the wall in Tiajuana to Imperial Beach CA, and was arrested. A couple of days later she had a baby and was released into the country.
She stated her goal was to join her family in Columbus OH, and having a baby on US soil was "a big reward for the long journey in the caravan."
The Asian-American commentator, herself a child of LEGAL Immigrants, rightly states "That is the achor baby problem."
I agree that the 14 Amendment has been completely perverted by the idea that all you need to do to jump the Immigration line is to have a baby on US soil, which then "anchors" you ahead of all other potential immigrants.
I hope the SCOTUS finally clarifies the issue, if Congress does not do it by law.
(Please don't cite United States v. Wong Kim Ark, as IMO the basis for that decision was the fact the Chinese parents were LEGAL alien resident's present by treaty to reside in the US, and thus their native-born son was "subject to the jurisdiction thereof").
Illegal migrants are citizens of a foreign nation present without permission, and remain subjects of that foreign nation (which is why they can be deported). International law allows foreign citizens to be punished by the nations they are "visiting" if they violate the laws of that nation, so trying to argue this refer to what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, is IMHO a stretch.
The law should prevent such misinterpretation of birthright citizenship, as the commentator states almost unique aside from the US and Canada in the industrialized world, and that would stifle this "rush" to the borders of such line-jumpers.
I guess we'll have to see how SCOTUS deals with it since Congress refuses to do so.
That's superhuman 'git er done'.
We need more of those genes in our gene pool
You'd deport the mother of an American? What will you do with the child?
Maybe there's something to the brown supremacy movement. Where you gonna find a white woman climbing a wall two days before birth. Perhaps Black Friday at the Gap, but I doubt it.
So much for Caucasians being a "superior race." :lol:
Eastern europe.Maybe there's something to the brown supremacy movement. Where you gonna find a white woman climbing a wall two days before birth. Perhaps Black Friday at the Gap, but I doubt it.
Eastern europe.
It's not a race thing, it's an american thing.
The following is a report from Fox News morning show this morning 12/06/18
Apparently a pregnant Honduran woman climbed over the wall in Tiajuana to Imperial Beach CA, and was arrested. A couple of days later she had a baby and was released into the country.
She stated her goal was to join her family in Columbus OH, and having a baby on US soil was "a big reward for the long journey in the caravan."
The Asian-American commentator, herself a child of LEGAL Immigrants, rightly states "That is the achor baby problem."
I agree that the 14 Amendment has been completely perverted by the idea that all you need to do to jump the Immigration line is to have a baby on US soil, which then "anchors" you ahead of all other potential immigrants.
I hope the SCOTUS finally clarifies the issue, if Congress does not do it by law.
(Please don't cite United States v. Wong Kim Ark, as IMO the basis for that decision was the fact the Chinese parents were LEGAL alien resident's present by treaty to reside in the US, and thus their native-born son was "subject to the jurisdiction thereof").
Illegal migrants are citizens of a foreign nation present without permission, and remain subjects of that foreign nation (which is why they can be deported). International law allows foreign citizens to be punished by the nations they are "visiting" if they violate the laws of that nation, so trying to argue this refer to what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, is IMHO a stretch.
The law should prevent such misinterpretation of birthright citizenship, as the commentator states almost unique aside from the US and Canada in the industrialized world, and that would stifle this "rush" to the borders of such line-jumpers.
I guess we'll have to see how SCOTUS deals with it since Congress refuses to do so.
You'd deport the mother of an American? What will you do with the child?
The following is a report from Fox News morning show this morning 12/06/18
Apparently a pregnant Honduran woman climbed over the wall in Tiajuana to Imperial Beach CA, and was arrested. A couple of days later she had a baby and was released into the country.
She stated her goal was to join her family in Columbus OH, and having a baby on US soil was "a big reward for the long journey in the caravan."
The Asian-American commentator, herself a child of LEGAL Immigrants, rightly states "That is the achor baby problem."
I agree that the 14 Amendment has been completely perverted by the idea that all you need to do to jump the Immigration line is to have a baby on US soil, which then "anchors" you ahead of all other potential immigrants.
I hope the SCOTUS finally clarifies the issue, if Congress does not do it by law.
(Please don't cite United States v. Wong Kim Ark, as IMO the basis for that decision was the fact the Chinese parents were LEGAL alien resident's present by treaty to reside in the US, and thus their native-born son was "subject to the jurisdiction thereof").
Illegal migrants are citizens of a foreign nation present without permission, and remain subjects of that foreign nation (which is why they can be deported). International law allows foreign citizens to be punished by the nations they are "visiting" if they violate the laws of that nation, so trying to argue this refer to what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, is IMHO a stretch.
The law should prevent such misinterpretation of birthright citizenship, as the commentator states almost unique aside from the US and Canada in the industrialized world, and that would stifle this "rush" to the borders of such line-jumpers.
I guess we'll have to see how SCOTUS deals with it since Congress refuses to do so.
It's obvious that even if someone steps forward to clarify what the 14th should even stand for. That there will be no end to the line of people trying to wrench it back into this little pigeon hole that it has been occupying for so long.
Another future Democrat voter and it's mom.
A fence couldn't stop a determined alien.So a wall couldn’t even stop a pregnant woman at full term? While I am not in principle opposed to a Constitutional Amendment ending birthright citizenship, that lady is kind of badass.
By the language used in the Constitution, the child is not a citizen.You'd deport the mother of an American? What will you do with the child?
We need more of those genes that would disrespect our nation's boarders and risk their child's life climbing such a fence? No we certainly do not. That is exactly the kind we do not need.We need more of those genes in our gene pool
We need more of those genes that would disrespect our nation's boarders and risk their child's life climbing such a fence?
Your opinion is disgusting.Yes, exactly!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?