Anchors, Anvils & Hammers

[Flanders]

Ann Coulter has it right:

​

Ann Coulter joins Trump in epic smackdown
Posted By Chelsea Schilling On 08/25/2015 @ 9:18 pm

Ann Coulter joins Trump in epic smackdown​

I especially enjoyed this:

. . . “But I have an idea. How about anvil babies – because that’s what anchor babies are around the necks of the American taxpayer.”​

Unfortunately, Ann’s anvil idea is dead in the water. The speech Nazis will never let Americans decide they want to be the hammers for a while:

And isn’t it interesting that the highest paid network mouths are called anchors? Question: If they are anchors what the hell are they anchoring? Answer: Their tax dollar salaries.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Ann is for it, 70% of America is against it. It is the season of the witch.

 

[Moonglow]

Change the Constitution then...

 

[Flanders]

Change the Constitution then...

To Moonglow: Which clause or amendment do you suggest? Certainly not the 14th Amendment:

Ever since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the MSM [MainStream Media]. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means.

Recent story lines go something like this: "Currently the Constitution says that a person born in this country is an American citizen. That's it. No caveats." The problem with these sort of statements other than being plainly false is that it reinforces a falsehood that has become viewed as a almost certain fact through such false assertions over time.

Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance
By P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog, December 17, 2005​

Same link

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment​

As usual, the parasite class finds things in the Constitution that are not there —— then they demand that Americans prove that they are not there.

And, as usual, parasites dare not call for a constitutional amendment to claim a privilege nobody else has.

EVERY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE BECOMES A RIGHT FOR PARASITES​

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is this, that the far right nativists will not give "the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States." Yes, they are citizens. No, Congress can't change it. Yes, it will require an amendment.

 

[Moonglow]

Citizenship by Being Born in the United States

In most situations, any child that is born in the United States or one of its territories will automatically receive American citizenship. However, children born to diplomats and other recognized government officials from foreign countries will not receive U.S. citizenship if born on American soil. You can learn more about this by looking through Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

If you were born in the U.S., your U.S. citizenship will last your entire life unless you make an affirmative action to give it up, like filing an oath.

- See more at: U.S. Citizenship Through Parents or by Birth - FindLaw

@ Flanders , You would also further your argument better by leaving out the derogatory statements..

 

[Flanders]

The fact is this, that the far right nativists will not give "the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States."

To JakeStarkey: Your opinion of honest and accurate does not stand up to in-depth research.

Yes, they are citizens. No, Congress can't change it. Yes, it will require an amendment.

To JakeStarkey: Birthright parasites have no incentive to change the Constitution when the Supreme Court does it for them!

As usual, the parasite class finds things in the Constitution that are not there —— then they demand that Americans prove that they are not there.

 

[Syriusly]

Ann Coulter has it right:

I didn't think Ann let herself be photographed without her legs showing......

 

[Flanders]

I didn't think Ann let herself be photographed without her legs showing......

To Syriusly: Interesting observation.

Every FOX bimbo has it in their contract. Flashing a pair of legs is a standard requirement for attractive guests.

Number 3 permalink

Cable networks fighting over rigged ratings is akin to sex symbols fighting over breast sizes when everybody knows that Hollywood tits are mostly silicon. The one difference is that TV ladies don’t show boobs they show legs. I’m pretty sure network producers think the best legs get the highest ratings. Interestingly, tits and legs are both known in the business as the masturbation factor.

Democratcare | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum​

 

[Unkotare]

You got something against legs?

 

[rhodescholar]

If Ann is for it, 70% of America is against it. It is the season of the witch.

Read her book "Adios America", then get back to us - assuming you can understand it.

 

[rhodescholar]

The fact is this, that the far right nativists will not give "the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States." Yes, they are citizens. No, Congress can't change it. Yes, it will require an amendment.

Wrong, chimp. Since the parents who snuck in are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US - that's why something called embassies exists - their children should not be considered citizens. This fraud was initiated by LBJ as a means of delivering voters for the democratic party, when they realized that no whites were going to vote for them any longer. Whites have not majority voted for the democratic party presidential candidate in any election since 1948, in fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Parents are, clearly in the language of the 14th and Wong, subject to US jurisdction.

White males, in particular, "have not majority voted for the democratic party presidential candidate in any election since 1948", because their voting domination of the process began its decline from about 55% to 34% over the last near seventy years.

 

[DGS49]

The Wong case deals with parents who were LEGALLY in the U.S. (i.e., subject to U.S. jurisdiction), though not citizens. The question of the children of people in the country ILLEGALLY has never been addressed by the USSC. In such cases, the parents are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the countries from which they came.

Drawing on very recent history, one might note that the USSC recently "interpreted" the Affordable Care Act by IGNORING the actual words of it, and discerning the legislative intent that Congress wanted people to be able to purchase insurance from exchanges - whether their home state had established them or not. This process, while reaching a conclusion with which I disagree, is a legitimate method of interpretation of laws. In the case of the 14th Amendment, however, Liberals seek to do the OPPOSITE: they wish to IGNORE the clear legislative history of the 14th Amendment (created to prevent southern States from denying citizenship rights to freed slaves), and use it to legitimize people who were manifestly not intended to be covered by the operative language.

There is one mention of the children of illegals w/r/t the 14th amendment, and it is by Justice Brennan IN A FOOTNOTE to a case in 1983. Since it was not the legal point on which that case was decided, it is nothing more than "dicta," and not binding. Birthright citizenship has been PRESUMED to be the law of the land ever since, but with no real justification.

Congress CAN amend the meaning of the 14th Amendment by legislation, and they have done so in the case of Amerindians, who, prior to legislation, were NOT deemed to be U.S. citizens if born on a reservation. Thus NO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED to correct this bizarre and intentionally-wrong "interpretation" of the Amendment. A simple, short, concise law would suffice.

 

[rhodescholar]

The Wong case deals with parents who were LEGALLY in the U.S. (i.e., subject to U.S. jurisdiction), though not citizens. The question of the children of people in the country ILLEGALLY has never been addressed by the USSC. In such cases, the parents are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the countries from which they came.

Drawing on very recent history, one might note that the USSC recently "interpreted" the Affordable Care Act by IGNORING the actual words of it, and discerning the legislative intent that Congress wanted people to be able to purchase insurance from exchanges - whether their home state had established them or not. This process, while reaching a conclusion with which I disagree, is a legitimate method of interpretation of laws. In the case of the 14th Amendment, however, Liberals seek to do the OPPOSITE: they wish to IGNORE the clear legislative history of the 14th Amendment (created to prevent southern States from denying citizenship rights to freed slaves), and use it to legitimize people who were manifestly not intended to be covered by the operative language.

There is one mention of the children of illegals w/r/t the 14th amendment, and it is by Justice Brennan IN A FOOTNOTE to a case in 1983. Since it was not the legal point on which that case was decided, it is nothing more than "dicta," and not binding. Birthright citizenship has been PRESUMED to be the law of the land ever since, but with no real justification.

Congress CAN amend the meaning of the 14th Amendment by legislation, and they have done so in the case of Amerindians, who, prior to legislation, were NOT deemed to be U.S. citizens if born on a reservation. Thus NO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED to correct this bizarre and intentionally-wrong "interpretation" of the Amendment. A simple, short, concise law would suffice.

Outstanding post, absolutely correct. Post of the week for sure.

 

[Flanders]

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment

J. Scott Smart has a winner. Nobody can argue the 14th Amendment for visa-jumpers:

He said 40 percent of illegal immigrants are allowed into the United States legally with a visa and then stay longer than their visa allows.

“However long your visa is, then we go get you,” Mr. Christie said. “We tap you on the shoulder and say, ‘Excuse me. Thanks for coming. Time to go.’ ”​

Chris Christie wants to track immigrants like Fed Ex Packages

Chris Christie wants to track immigrants like Fed Ex Packages​

 

[Flanders]

Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance
By P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog, December 17, 2005

Jeez, the halfwits on the Supreme Court could not figure out the Constitution when it was illegal aliens squatting and dropping kids on American soil; so what the hell are they going to do with this one?

American Surrogates Are Giving Birth To Anchor Babies
JP Carroll
National Security & Foreign Affairs Reporter
9:08 PM 10/07/2016

American Surrogates Are Giving Birth To Anchor Babies​

 

[Unkotare]

The fact is this, that the far right nativists will not give "the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States." Yes, they are citizens. No, Congress can't change it. Yes, it will require an amendment.

...the parents who snuck in are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US - ....

Yes, they are.

 

[dfens]

The Republicans love immigration. Cheap labor and consumers are good for business. It's why they haven't done anything on immigration for 50 years.

But keep voting Republican, white Americans. I'm sure it will change any time now!

 

[rhodescholar]

The Republicans love immigration. Cheap labor and consumers are good for business. It's why they haven't done anything on immigration for 50 years.

But keep voting Republican, white Americans. I'm sure it will change any time now!

And voting democratic for shit like hillary and obama will do what, exactly to solve the issue?