Sunday, May 17, 2009

What Aren't We Being Told? And, Why?

There is a whole lot more to this story than we've been allowed to know. I don't know what - perhaps I've only seen small parts of it and someone else knows?

A couple of weeks ago a little 3-year-old boy was abducted by armed men from his family's house in San Bernardino. [Cute, cute little boy! Luv the long curls.] The boy has been found and reunited with his Mom - for which I am glad - but what is the rest of the story? The child was "found wandering the streets" in the border town of Mexicali in Mexico. [Who cut his hair?!!] Did anyone honestly think the story was going to have a happy ending? I didn't. San Bernardino County Sheriff Rod Hoops said, "I've been doing this for 30 years. I'm not saying it doesn't happen... but the odds of finding him safe and alive - the odds of finding him alive - went down every day."

The little boy's mother and investigators boarded a plane to go to Calexico on Friday. "FBI agents crossed the border and handed immigration paperwork for the boy, who holds dual U.S. and Mexican citizenship." Umm. No. Let's call a spade a spade, here. He is an "anchor baby," and I don't believe that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ever intended for scads of illegal immigrants to cross into the United States to have children that would automatically become citizens. That is not how it works. That is how many people want it to work. You were born to illegal immigrants - your being born in the United States does not make you any less illegal. The Supreme Court is still out on that, though. Far too busy deciding whether or not a caterpillar in an inmate's cell constitutes t0rture. T0rture... Go here to see what t0rture is! [More on that, here.] Then tell me... I digress...

The story is a bit "sticky." There was a mountain of paperwork involved because this was a "cross-border incident." And the Mom? She couldn't cross the border because she IS an illegal immigrant. But that is okay. That isn't breaking any law or anything, right? NO! It is NOT okay. What is wrong with law enforcement officers in the United States? Are you not supposed to be upholding the laws that have been enacted?!! Yes. You are! But you don't. You're hands are tied. We do not fault you - our law enforcement officers - we understand that you want to do your job but that you are not allowed to do so. We, as tax payers, spend ginormous amounts of money that we shouldn't have to with so many illegal immigrants taking advantage of all the "free" services in our Country. Those services are not free! Someone pays for them. I know. I know. We're going to let everyone stay - make them all citizens - and they'll all vote for dhimmicrats in the next election - so everything is just hunky dorey, right?

The Sheriff "declined to comment on Millan's immigration status, but stressed that Briant [the little boy] is an American citizen." No. He isn't. He is a Mexican citizen. "He was born in a hospital in San Bernardino and he has every right to be here." No. He doesn't. Other countries get this right. You think that just any woman in Saudi can have a baby and that baby becomes a Saudi citizen? Hell no. Even the children of Saudi women who do not marry Saudi men are not allowed to become Saudi citizens. Other countries get it. The United States doesn't. We've got a Supreme Court full of namby-pansy-ass liberals who want to rewrite the laws of the United States and shred the United States Constitution faster than a Bible is shredded in Saudi Arabia! [Oh, yes. They are.]

And a liberal media who wants to tell us that the parents are not suspects. Calling B.S. How much did all of this cost in tax dollars?!? The investigation, the bribes paid to Mexican officials to facilitate the paperwork, the flights to and from... A lot. Hey? Want me to just send a check for my portion? Our taxes just keep going up and up. Enough is enough! As if California doesn't have enough of a financial problem - it is fiscally insolvent. Best thing that could happen is if Mexico took it back or it slid into the Pacific [take Nancy with you! And Dianne, too!]. Brought on by its own incompetence and through no fault of mine! The investigation is ongoing. Great. More tax dollars. At the federal and local level. "...the Spanish-speaking kidnappers were from Mexico and may have had ties to organized crime there." Yeah. Tell me again the parents aren't suspects. Perhaps not in their own child's abduction - but they've obviously done something. Hmmph. For starters, they are here illegally, remember?


  1. The constitution says if you are born in the US, you are a citizen. The anchor baby problem is nowhere near severe enough to change the constitution.

    That doesn't mean there is nothing to do. The baby is a citizen, the parents are not. If the baby has a guardian who is here legally, he can stay, otherwise he can come back and claim his citizenship when he's 18. Either way, the illegal parents go back.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. There is a valid reason why I removed this comment; see my post tomorrow. Assholes. Trying to "sneak" in here to get me to post their point of view. Go somewhere else!

  4. "The constitution says if you are born in the US, you are a citizen." We can agree to disagree, Sevesteen. And we can agree to disagree that the "anchor baby" problem "is nowhere near severe enough" to change the Constitution. I don't want to change it. I simply want to make it stand for what it is supposed to stand for.

  5. 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.I don't see how that could be much clearer. Born here, (other than at a foreign embassy, I suppose) means you are a citizen. Any other interpretation is like the "collective rights" interpretation of the second amendment, wishful thinking rather than plain English.

    Amending the constitution should be nearly a last resort, when other avenues to solve a problem fail.

    We haven't even tried most of the other avenues. Illegal immigration is a significant problem that we aren't dealing with. Anchor babies are a mere symptom that can be dealt with far short of a constitutional amendment.

  6. I've read it too, Sevensteen. I am fine agreeing to disagree. I disagree that you have posted the "WHOLE" thing. That is a PART of it. You are more than welcome to disagree with me here - or anywhere else - I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. I am simply stating that we can agree to disagree. And no, that adorable cute, cute, cute little 3-year-old boy is NOT a citizen of the United States. Much as I'd like him to be... he can come live with us. He is NOT a U.S. Citizen. Nor is his mother [father? we didn't hear much about him, did we?!?].

  7. I'm honestly curious what part of the constitution gives circumstances where a baby born in the US isn't a citizen.

    I am in absolute agreement that mother and father do not become citizens, and shouldn't become either legal residents or un-deportable by having a baby in the US. Our immigration system is messed up in a lot of ways--we make it too difficult to come here legally, but too easy to stay here illegally.

  8. I am happy to have the anchor kids. Their parents can go back to the lands of malaria, death squads and pandemic corruption. Having a citizen child is not a free pass to violate the immigration laws of any country.

  9. OMG I am with you all the way! I have a blog about Reagan conservatism, and I don't care if no one EVER comments. I am against liberals and a proud Republican. Mainly because of the anchor baby stuff like this!

    I saw his picture today with the mop of hair, and wondered about it all. Nancy is too busy worrying about keeping her story straight about torture Stilettos, and Dianne is trying to figure out how to kill more babies through abortion and call it pro-choice rather than what it really is pro-murder.

    I didn't know about Saudi's laws regarding anchor babies, but this is exactly why the U.S. will no longer be a superpower if this keeps up.

    Fantastic Post!!

  10. Fourteenth Amendment Sevesteen - does not specifically state that children born TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS automatically become citizens. Find me where it says - and I mean specifically - that children born TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE citizens.

    You'll get no disagreement from me that we make it too easy to stay illegally. Go home. All of you. Take your children with you.

    Think about it. If they were there LEGALLY, then I'd be willing to have a different argument. They are NOT there LEGALLY. I, personally, believe immigration is a big, big problem. Big one. And it is going to take someone with some real balls to fix it. bho - his wife wears his.

  11. The parents "not" suspects? Excrement of a male bovine... I am sure they, other relatives, and certainly associates are suspects.
    = = = =

    As to "Born in the USA" bestowing automatic citizenship, well, it is a problem. OTOH, have you applied for US citizenship? No? Why not? OK, somewhere along the line your forebears became citizens in some way, so you derive citizenship from them - unlike the kid in the story, and many others. Still, there is that admonition concerning babies and bathwater.

    Disallow for completely illegal parentage, which is indeed out of order.

    Perhaps for those born of non-
    citizen parents, limit to children of parents who have at least applied (it can take years even in the best circumstances) for US citizenship? Oh, but at least adjust if not abolish the quota system limiting allowable applicants by geography, which to this life-long (sixty-odd years) Republican still smacks of "racial" discrimination dating back at least to the days when it was "The Yellow Peril" in the headlines, or perhaps "No Irish Need Apply" times.

  12. The 14th doesn't specifically state that blacks are citizens--but its primary purpose was to give blacks citizenship. "show me where it specifically states" is of course impossible--It gives a general statement that everyone born here is a citizen, without mentioning specifically all the different people who are part of "everyone born here".

    I can't find exceptions, nor have I had anyone point them out to me.

    Maybe there should be exceptions, but that's a different issue.

    We can allow anyone born here to be a citizen, and still fix the overwhelming majority of our illegal immigration problems.

  13. Sevesteen: "Citizenship Clause
    Main article: Citizenship Clause

    In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the United States.

    The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), regarding children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.[7]

    The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[8] Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[9] although that has generally been assumed to be the case.[10] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)[11] and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).[12] Nevertheless, some claim the Congress possesses the power to exclude such children from US citizenship by legislation.[9]" Link.

  14. Cont'd: "Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship..." The Supreme Court needs to get back to ruling on basics. Forget whether a caterpillar constitutes torture. Decide the issue once and for all. I do not believe that if your parents are illegal immigrants that you are automatically allowed citizenship by birthright. It is black and white, in my opinion. No gray area. A "general assumption" doesn't make it so.

  15. Hmm.

    Reading further about the Elk Vs. Wilkins, it hinges on the peculiar status of Indian Nations as being not totally “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

    It isn't quite as clear as I thought, but I don't think illegals hold the same special status as Native Americans--that case was a specific exception to the general rule.

  16. I have 3 grandchildren, born to US citizens, military, and these children were born abroad in hospitals on the economy. They were NOT born in hospitals on US military bases because the bases HAD no hospital, which is a whole different story. Those children are NOT citizens of the countries they were born in, nor were they automatically proclaimed US citizens. The parents had to have proof of US citizenship to present to the US Embassy in those countries in order to register the birth of the child, to obtain SS numbers and to apply for a US passport for those children.
    Why in heaven's name should it be any different for children born in the US to non-citizens?

  17. I thoroughly, thoroughly agree with you Linda!

  18. Yup...I had to prove my citizenship before they would give it to my children since those children were born in Bahrain. Incidently, Bahrain doesnt recognize them as both Bahrainis and Americans...over here you can only claim one at a time...and its generally the fathers Arab status that designates your childs citizenship...whether you like it or not.

    So...what you have to do is "give up" the american citizenship...go get all the paperwork done and passports made to show they are Bahrainis...then go back to the embassy and remake all the american documents etc...a sort of under the carpet subterfuge against the govt but what else can you do? Everything in this country is redtaped to death.

  19. Keeps all the MEN on this side of the world sitting in offices feeling like they are actually worth something, CR38. This way, they don't have to DO the jobs THAT sponsored slaves come here to do. Just my opinion... Not worth a riyal - or fil...

  20. I think (but I'm not sure) that only USA and France (or UK) grant citizenship to all born inside their border. I'm not an American (sadly) and i still can't understan why the Us grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens...i know that most of them are coming to the Us to have a better life but i find disgustin that they are using a new born to stay in the US.


Site Meter