Anchor Babies

Big Chief

The new rage, not to say it? For decades it has been used and all of the sudden it is derogatory/hurtful. What do they want to replace it with?

Pantsuit says call them babies/US citizens............she left out future Dem Voters. But wait, as they were saying wouldn't the planned parenthood eliminate a lot of them that she supports?

Well, at least, they are not being used for boat anchors by all them meanies who want to close our borders :devil:

PC madness marches on :bang::bang:

snake284

Big Chief wrote: »

The new rage, not to say it? For decades it has been used and all of the sudden it is derogatory/hurtful. What do they want to replace it with?

Pantsuit says call them babies/US citizens............she left out future Dem Voters. But wait, as they were saying wouldn't the planned parenthood eliminate a lot of them that she supports?

Well, at least, they are not being used for boat anchors by all them meanies who want to close our borders :devil:

PC madness marches on :bang::bang:

On the serious side of the news, :roll2::roll2::roll2:!

But seriously, Trump is blowing his mouth about sending them all back. That's BS. He can't. Has he ever read the Constitution? He truly sounds like the Libtard he claims not to be when he says things like this. Has he ever heard of an expost facto law? There shall be no expost facto law. In other words, you can't change a law, or create a new law and punish those who committed an offense BEFORE it was an offense.

Now if, lots of ifs here, if Trump IS elected and IF he gets the Amendment amended, those that were here already that came here legally, and it was legal at the time, and they were borned here as the law is now, can't be deported. Now all those after the Amendment is Amended are fair game. Those born here under the new law are subject to it. But those before would be grandfathered from its penalties. They are American Citizens

True enough, like I have said many times, if Trump is on the ballot as the Republican Nominee, he will get my vote. But I will still call a spade a spade. Sometimes I wish the man would put his brain in gear before his mouth.

breamfisher

cpj wrote: »

Actually Mark Levin was making the case yesterday that this anchor baby stuff is nonsense, and it's NOT protected by the constitution.

Yeah, Bisley mentioned that in response to what I posted on this thread here....

http://forums.gunsandammo.com/showthread.php?25538-Trump-s-immigration-plan-%28for-real%29

Thing is...
1. Immigration was handled differently back then vs. now.
2. Judge Napolitano said it's been handled in court cases and upheld as Constitutional.

So who's to know?

snake284

breamfisher wrote: »

Yeah, Bisley mentioned that in response to what I posted on this thread here....

http://forums.gunsandammo.com/showthread.php?25538-Trump-s-immigration-plan-%28for-real%29

Thing is...
1. Immigration was handled differently back then vs. now.
2. Judge Napolitano said it's been handled in court cases and upheld as Constitutional.

So who's to know?

Unfortunately, if a court has made a ruling it's called legal precedence and that is more often than not, like law. In very few cases will a judge make a ruling against a standing precedence. There have been many cases of this brought before courts and I believe the anchor's citizenship was always held up. Now the other family members who weren't born here I don't think have any rights unless the kid that was born here petitioned Immigration for them and they now have a green card or citizenship.

One thing, this is all open to legal interpretation. And one judge might interpret things differently from another or from Mark Levin. That's Marks opinion. Don't get me wrong, I love Mark Levin. And i would trust his opinion, except you can't always trust a judge's opinion. And with Libtard Judges, they are influenced by Liberal leanings and PC crap.

tennmike

Well, Snake, you should know about the concept 'original intent'. The 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War to take care of the problem of former slaves and their children as to citizenship. That it was poorly written is obvious, but the original intent of the amendment is clear. All you have to do is read the Congressional Record concerning the Amendment at the time it was being written to know what the original intent of the Amendment was to cover. You're getting dangerously close to slipping into that 'living breathing change at the drop of the hat' interpretation of the Constitution.

Teach

If enough effort is made to make the damp-spined population unemployable, the whole anchor-brat discussion becomes moot. I don't know many families who would even consider leaving a kid behind when they moved back across the border to keep from starving to death.
Jerry

snake284

tennmike wrote: »

Well, Snake, you should know about the concept 'original intent'. The 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War to take care of the problem of former slaves and their children as to citizenship. That it was poorly written is obvious, but the original intent of the amendment is clear. All you have to do is read the Congressional Record concerning the Amendment at the time it was being written to know what the original intent of the Amendment was to cover. You're getting dangerously close to slipping into that 'living breathing change at the drop of the hat' interpretation of the Constitution.

I understand the original intent. But getting a bunch of LIBTARD Judges to buy into it is quite another matter. Legal Precedence, right or wrong, is a reality. There have been many cases involving this subject matter brought before various courts and I assure you What I wish would happen and what is most likely to happen, is most likely two very different outcomes. Besides, if someone has been given citizenship, I guarantee unless they really screw the pooch, ain't nobody gonna take it away. I'm all for what Trump wants to do. I just think only those who bring a case before a court AFTER such amendment is done will be subject to deportation. I'm just being real here.

Big Chief

They were discussing Rubio and Cruz(?)................as Anchor Babies of a sort??????????????????

And El Chapo the escaped drug lord sent his wife to the US to have their babies..........interesting.

I guess my main point is the term has been used forever and now that Reps repeated/used it they shouldn't. Never mind Dems and everybody else were using it.

Not just Mexican/immigrants/illegals, lots of folks from around the world, even wealthy Chinese come here on tourist visas to have Anchor Babies.

snake284

Big Chief wrote: »

They were discussing Rubio and Cruz(?)................as Anchor Babies of a sort??????????????????

And El Chapo the escaped drug lord sent his wife to the US to have their babies..........interesting.

I guess my main point is the term has been used forever and now that Reps repeated/used it they shouldn't. Never mind Dems and everybody else were using it.

Not just Mexican/immigrants/illegals, lots of folks from around the world, even wealthy Chinese come here on tourist visas to have Anchor Babies.

Lots of Chinese, they're some of the biggest offenders and what attracted some law makers attention a few years back.

I don't know if that's such a bad thing or not, cause sometimes I think Asians might just upgrade our gene pool. They usually don't mind working and there vimmens are usually not fat.:jester:

snake284

Teach wrote: »

If enough effort is made to make the damp-spined population unemployable, the whole anchor-brat discussion becomes moot. I don't know many families who would even consider leaving a kid behind when they moved back across the border to keep from starving to death.
Jerry

I think our neighbors to the immediate South leave these kids with legal relatives.

horselips

Exaggerated political correctness like this is one of the driving forces behind Donald Trump's high poll numbers.

knitepoet

If they're "anchors" shouldn't they be imbedded in the bottom of some body of water holding a boat, or ship in place? :tooth:

Big Chief

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UALb0NLZM3M

JerryBobCo

cpj wrote: »

Actually Mark Levin was making the case yesterday that this anchor baby stuff is nonsense, and it's NOT protected by the constitution.

Mark Levin is a smart guy, even though I don't particularly care for his style. Maybe if Hannity would knock of "the great one" crap he would be a bit more likeable. Regardless, even if he is right, he doesn't get to interpret the laws or the constitution. That's a job for the Supreme Court, and I don't see the bunch in there now ruling against the current anchor baby ruling.

Fat Billy

Anchor Tissue is now the PC term for anchor babies. The 14th Amendment was designed to make all slave babies born here citizens. Part of the Reconstruction legislation to protect rites of children born here in 1898 forward. There were no Illegal Aliens at that time and all aliens were interred until registered and had a set period of time to become citizens. The Supreme Court decided to include ALL babies born in the USA in another display of the Court deciding new options of existing law. Trump is a blunt instrument and that is what wee need to overcome the BS in Washington. Remember the majority is RED NECK America. :popcorn: Later,

GunnerK19

Boatweight Tykes.

snake284

breamfisher wrote: »

Yeah, Bisley mentioned that in response to what I posted on this thread here....

http://forums.gunsandammo.com/showthread.php?25538-Trump-s-immigration-plan-%28for-real%29

Thing is...
1. Immigration was handled differently back then vs. now.
2. Judge Napolitano said it's been handled in court cases and upheld as Constitutional.

So who's to know?

That's legal precedence.

GunnerK19

Yeno that wall Trump said Mexico is going to pay to build on the border? Well, here's how they're going to pay for it...

http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/11/15/pilot-program-requires-americans-to-pay-to-cross-into-mexico/

bisley

The Anchor Baby whining is simply another left-wing censorship to avoid a debate they aren't willing to participate in without stacking the deck, with rules that favor their position. If they are arguing nomenclature, they aren't defending indefensible positions.

snake284

GunnerK19 wrote: »

Yeno that wall Trump said Mexico is going to pay to build on the border? Well, here's how they're going to pay for it...

http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/11/15/pilot-program-requires-americans-to-pay-to-cross-into-mexico/

And how do you figure that's going to pay for that wall?

Nope, Trump's talking out his ass again. If a wall gets built, he'll pay for most of it out of his own pocket so he can blow his chest out and say, "Look at the Wall I built!" Either that or We'll pay for it.

shootbrownelk

Wambli Ska wrote: »

THIS!!! We don't need a fence. A 1 million dollar per illegal immigrant on your employment, federal level, non-negotiable fine would have us building one way bridges back to Mexico to accommodate the traffic flow. That and a standing order to the BP that anyone carrying guns and drugs into the USA is considered an invading enemy combatant and is fair game. Immigration problem SOLVED,

I like the way you think Wambli. We don't need no stinking fences!

GunnerK19

snake284 wrote: »

And how do you figure that's going to pay for that wall?

Nope, Trump's talking out his ass again. If a wall gets built, he'll pay for most of it out of his own pocket so he can blow his chest out and say, "Look at the Wall I built!" Either that or We'll pay for it.

Mexico is going to pay for it with our own money they're charging us for crossing into Mexico. Did you not catch that as the reason I posted the link?

Granted $20 bucks per ain't gonna do squat, but it's the symbolism Mexico is attaching to this now that's throwing this whole Illegal thing up in our faces, least that's how I see it.

DoctorWho

The only way anything will change with Mexico is if we conquer it, appoint a provisional Government and do the same with Columbia.

Lance

It's a fool's errand to try to satisfy every demand that people who lead such empty, lonely lives that they have nothing better to do than look around to find ANYTHING to be offended by.

They'll just find something else.

They're like the old widow who lives down the street, and calls the public health dept. or ordinance police if your grass grows so much as a millimeter above the law.

Lance

DoctorWho wrote: »

The only way anything will change with Mexico is if we conquer it, appoint a provisional Government and do the same with Columbia.

Don't know how serious you are, but I agree somewhat. An expansion of the Monroe Doctrine would cure a lot of this, (and cut the legs off of NAFTA in the process) and it'd certainly be better than pissing our $ and soldiers' lives away in a Graveyard of Empires like Afghanistan.

shush

DoctorWho wrote: »

The only way anything will change with Mexico is if we conquer it, appoint a provisional Government and do the same with Columbia.

Lance wrote: »

Don't know how serious you are, but I agree somewhat. An expansion of the Monroe Doctrine would cure a lot of this, (and cut the legs off of NAFTA in the process) and it'd certainly be better than pissing our $ and soldiers' lives away in a Graveyard of Empires like Afghanistan.

A bit of colonial expansion, I am all for it.

We had lots of fun with that sometime ago.

I hope you do it displaying a quick and delicate appreciation of others' feelings, like what we did.

bisley

DoctorWho wrote: »

The only way anything will change with Mexico is if we conquer it, appoint a provisional Government and do the same with Columbia.

I've been recommending that for twenty years. The problem is that it takes a military governor to root out all the corrupt politicians and crooks, and a full generation before honest and competent locals can be found to replace the military. As Obama has demonstrated, as soon as the American people elect the next socialist government, they will pull out and leave the place in chaos.

snake284

bisley wrote: »

I've been recommending that for twenty years. The problem is that it takes a military governor to root out all the corrupt politicians and crooks, and a full generation before honest and competent locals can be found to replace the military. As Obama has demonstrated, as soon as the American people elect the next socialist government, they will pull out and leave the place in chaos.

This is very interesting. I wonder how many other Americans have thought about this? Not just Mexico or Columbia. It was almost taboo to bring up such a subject because to many libtardia have jammed it home in the American mind that Empires were evil. An Empire can be either evil or good. It depends on the mind set of the leadership. Think about this. Is it such a sin to rule a country? If that country is poor and has corrupt leadership, why do we leave it to fester and become so malignant that we have to go back and have more of our fine soldiers die to free it again?

I look at the Philippines. The majority of the people you talk to there would love to be part of this place. That's why they are one of the number one countries with its citizens petitioning U.S. Immigration for an immigrant Visa. The reason they aren't a part of us today is we did basically what we did in Iraq. We left it up to them. Hey they were part of us. The people that didn't want to become a state there were the corrupt ones with money that knew that if they were part of the U.S. then they couldn't continue their corrupt ways.

If, when we went into Iraq and took over the place we would have just annexed the place we never would have left it to the locals to keep it free. And Obummer wouldn't have had any excuse for leaving too soon. And all the oil would have been ours which would help lower the price of oil in the world, hell with OPEC. AND the people would have been ultimately better off.

The United States is by far the greatest country in the world. Why do we allow the rest of the world to suffer? Why do we limit our abilities? Because we were asleep at the wheel and allowed people that probably didn't have the good of the world in mind to dictate policy. Now we couldn't just take everything over at once. But I'm saying we should change our policy. When we go into a place like Iraq, we should look at it as an acquisition. We should never allow our military personnel to die for something we're going to abandon.

Then we should rule it ourselves, not set up some puppet government and let the locals do it. Hell, like in the case of Iraq, they weren't doing such a hot job before, what makes us think that all of a sudden we can let the m elect their own government and turn them loose. Then when we elect an inept president of our own and he takes all troops out too early, the results are predictable to anyone with some gray matter separating their ears.

This would be a process. It wouldn't be built in a day, or a year, or in 10 years. It might take 20-30-50 years before a place like that would be on par with the rest of the country. But if done right and the people were educated right, it could happen.

shush

snake284 wrote: »

........If, when we went into Iraq and took over the place we would have just annexed the place we never would have left it to the locals to keep it free. And Obummer wouldn't have had any excuse for leaving too soon. And all the oil would have been ours which would help lower the price of oil in the world, hell with OPEC. AND the people would have been ultimately better off.

The United States is by far the greatest country in the world. Why do we allow the rest of the world to suffer? Why do we limit our abilities?...........

snake, please look at what history tells you about colonial empires.

I only say this because I have a very small insight into it.

Teach

The Russians tried the colonial approach with all the "Stan" countries to their south back when the USSR was active. It didn't work. Since the Israelites chose not to do an "ethnic cleanse" like they were told to do when they took the Promised Land after 40 years in the wilderness, the problem has grown to the point even that option isn't available any more. Short of genocide, I don't see an solution to the problem, and even that didn't work for Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.
Jerry

snake284

Teach wrote: »

The Russians tried the colonial approach with all the "Stan" countries to their south back when the USSR was active. It didn't work. Since the Israelites chose not to do an "ethnic cleanse" like they were told to do when they took the Promised Land after 40 years in the wilderness, the problem has grown to the point even that option isn't available any more. Short of genocide, I don't see an solution to the problem, and even that didn't work for Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.
Jerry

Yeah but you got to have a country that other people want. The majority of Iraqis love us. They would have been just as happy to have been part of us. If you go in there and make em slaves, yeah you're gonna fail. Nobody wants to live under that. It's natural for people to be free.

Oh yeah Shush you all gave your Empire away because these same people were telling you how bad you were. And maybe your country was a little rough in its rule. But I believe, if you offer people a great way of life where you have opportunity, and you have basic liberties, AND you have RULE of LAW, I believe people will come to love it. I don't know of any other country that ever offered that. But first you have to rid the world of libtards. They that tell people to relax, the Government will take care of you!!!